Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Freight

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage freight. to be moved by rail rather than by road.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): From April, we are introducing an enhanced rail freight grant regime. This, together with privatisation, open access for new operators and substantial investment in the infrastructure, freight terminals and rolling stock for the channel tunnel service, amounting to some £450 million, will provide a significant boost for the rail freight industry.

Mr. Hawkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. He may know that my constituents and I had the great good fortune to hear our right hon. Friend the Minister of State make an excellent speech covering the issue on Friday night. After that, I spent some time talking

to some of the senior management at Preston station. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me—and with them—that the opening of the channel tunnel will provide one of the great opportunities to put more freight on rail?

Mr. MacGregor: Very much so. I think that it will be a big market opportunity, not least for the north-west. As my hon. Friend may know, the opening of the tunnel will greatly reduce the travelling times from, say, Manchester or Liverpool to places on the continent, particularly in Mediterranean areas; travel will also be much quicker than by road. I agree with my hon. Friend that the channel tunnel offers a big opportunity for switching freight from road to rail.

Mrs. Dunwoody: How does the Secretary of State manage to keep a straight face while he says that? How can he seriously imagine that the imposition of astronomical charges on rolling stock and Railtrack can improve any form of transport, let alone encourage anyone to use it?

Mr. MacGregor: I think the hon. Lady will find that Railtrack will seek commercial contracts for freight. As for passenger transport, as the hon. Lady knows, the passenger franchisees will receive a subsidy to meet the Railtrack costs. I am absolutely clear about this; I think that the opening of the channel tunnel offers a major marketing opportunity. If the hon. Lady examines the times involved in travelling from the north-west to major continental centres, she will see that, with the channel tunnel, carrying freight on rail gives just that hope.

Mr. Nigel Evans: As my right hon. Friend knows, Castle Cement is in my constituency. It used to transport much of its freight by rail; now, unfortunately, it has switched to the roads, because they are more competitive. Will my right hon. Friend give the people of the Ribble valley some assurance that, when the new system is in operation in 1995, there will be greater incentives for firms such as Castle Cement to switch their freight transport back on to the railways?

Mr. MacGregor: Indeed; in fact, there are some recent examples of freight going back on to rail. I believe that opportunities for open access, coupled with the rail freight


grant regime, which will allow the provision of subsidies to meet Railtrack costs where there is an environmental benefit to be gained—I might have made that point to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—will encourage the switch back to rail.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Secretary of State convey our regret that Question 8, concerning the choice of rail privatisation, has been prudently withdrawn?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is pure nonsense to talk about benefits to Railfreight, or any other rail services, against the present background? From 1 April, railway subsidy will have to be doubled to maintain existing services, solely because of the artificially inflated access charges that the Treasury has forced on Railtrack. Does the Secretary of State accept—

Mr. MacGregor: A third question?

Mr. Wilson: Well, there are many things to accept before anyone can believe this nonsense.
In the light of that settlement, the rate of subsidy may be doubled. The Government are seeking to create the impression of a highly subsidised railway—twice as highly subsidised after 1 April as before that date. Is not the scene being set for the rundown of our railways?

Mr. MacGregor: I expressed surprise only because I understood that I was not expected to answer a large number of questions. I regret more than the hon. Gentleman that Question 8 is not to be asked. I was looking forward to it, and to demonstrating what privatisations have achieved. The hon. Gentleman, by his questions, showed that he does not understand how the new grant and access charging regimes will work.

International Station, Stratford

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives of Union Railways to discuss the case for an international station at Stratford.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman and representatives of the Stratford promoter group on 24 March to discuss their revised proposals for a Stratford station.

Mr. Banks: The Minister knows that the promoter group intends to make a bid for an intermediate international station at Stratford. Will he give a guarantee that no decision will be taken on the disposal of railway lines at Stratford that would prejudice the group's ability to make that bid to the Minister? Will the right hon. Gentleman also explain the likely disposition of the lands around Stratford in terms of ownership after the channel tunnel fast rail link has been constructed?

Mr. Freeman: It is important that the railway lands at Stratford—from the southern extremities, close to the existing Stratford station, all the way to Temple Mills—are retained in public sector ownership and available to help progress that great project.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: When my right hon. Friend meets Union Railways, will he bear in mind the possibility of an international railway station at Ebbsfleet in Kent, which would be very much more convenient?

Madam Speaker: Order. I try to be tolerant, but the question relates to a station at Stratford.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister agree that it would contribute immeasurably to the economic regeneration of east London and the east London corridor if there were an international station on the channel tunnel link at Stratford? Does he further accept that it would add immeasurably to the value of crossrail if that project also had a connection with the channel tunnel link at Stratford?

Mr. Freeman: We have not ruled out a connection between crossrail and the channel tunnel rail link—there are powerful arguments in favour. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State merely ruled out one particular intersection. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but my right hon. Friend's announcement was welcomed by Opposition Members representing the area ruled out, so that statement was helpful. As to the importance of a station at Stratford, there is a difference between an international station and a domestic station. I hope that the promoter group will argue the case for both.

Mile End Road

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in improving traffic conditions along the Mile End road.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The proposed red route measures for Mile End road will bring improvements for all road users in traffic and environmental conditions.

Mrs. Gorman: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital for the progress of his excellent plans for the Mile End road, which is on the way to my constituency, that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary should fight to retain the veto over Brussels bureaucracy, which might otherwise overrule my hon. Friend's excellent plans—as happened when Brussels introduced 44-tonne lorries to the United Kingdom? That caused enormous congestion throughout the country, as bridges had to be strengthened.

Mr. Norris: I admit that I had not covered that part of my background briefing. In so far as I understood the portent of my hon. Friend's question, I am sure that she is right. If I did not understand it, I instantly withdraw that remark. More to the point, the measures being taken on the principal route to my hon. Friend's constituency will add considerably to her ability to reach it quickly.

Ms Glenda Jackson: What is the point of making improvements to the Mile End road or any other in London, when the Minister intends to lift the current London lorry ban, which will allow 44-tonne lorries to use virtually any road in the capital?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady knows that the Government have no intention whatever of lifting the London lorry ban, but we have every intention of lifting the weight of GLC-inspired bureaucracy—the mountain of utterly needless and pointless paperwork that currently surrounds the ban—and in that respect we shall earn the gratitude of every business in London.

Traffic Calming

Mr. Legg: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has that traffic calming schemes have reduced accidents in urban areas.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): Preliminary research indications are that traffic calming reduces accidents by an average of 70 per cent. There have also been small reductions on surrounding roads. Such measures seem to be especially effective in reducing accidents to child pedestrians and child cyclists.

Mr. Legg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. Has he any idea what the effect on road accidents would be if motorists in built-up areas voluntarily reduced their speed below 30 mph?

Mr. Key: If average speeds were voluntarily reduced below about 20 mph in appropriate residential streets, it is likely that we would save some 500 lives a year.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that, although traffic calming measures have been extremely successful—certainly in Tameside and Stockport in my constituency—the key is to reduce the number of cars on the road? Does he accept that, particularly in Greater Manchester, the decision to take staff off the stations has frightened a large number of passengers away from those stations? Would not it be far better to ensure that public transport was effective in the area?

Mr. Key: Public transport already receives 40 per cent. of the Department's budget for only 10 per cent. of the journeys, and the massive investment in the Manchester metro has been widely welcomed. More significant than the number of cars on the road is the number of journeys that they make. That is something which local authorities have the power to influence through the traffic calming schemes that have been described.

Roads (Planning)

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to speed up the planning process for new and improved roads.

Mr. MacGregor: We are making good progress with the package of measures that I announced last summer. We are setting up the new Highways Agency in April and I hope to make an announcement about the review of the road programme soon. We are also consulting on changes to the inquiry rule; and two trial planning conferences have been held.

Mr. Shaw: May I express the grateful thanks of my constituents for the fantastic new road—the A20—which is dual carriageway all the way between Dover mid Perth? It has been of tremendous benefit to those working at the port, on the ferries and in the hovercraft industry. As that road has been so good to Dover, could not we speed up the process of making the A2 a dual carriageway as well?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the A20 and the effect of the A20, the M20 and the motorways thereafter, which benefit not only Dover, through its port, but businesses and individuals throughout the country. As to the A2, my hon. Friend may have in mind the Lydden to Dover improvement. The public consultation plan for 1993 was delayed, as the

traffic and engineering issues proved more complex than anticipated. Consultants are continuing their work to identify a scheme that is acceptable in acceptable in environmental, engineering and economic terms.

Mr. Flynn: Has the Secretary of State seen the reports that there are 10,000 deaths every year from a previously unidentified source—particulate emission, known as PM10, from motor vehicle exhausts? That is in addition to the suffering caused by asthma and other health problems. Is not the insane rush for new roads being paid for by our children in premature deaths?

Mr. MacGregor: There is no insane rush for new roads. There is a determination to ensure that our road network enables businesses to be fully competitive and individuals to exercise their choice in sensible ways. One of the ways that is not sensible is for traffic to be constantly congested and almost at a halt, which is certainly environmentally unattractive. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing everything that we can to improve emissions from vehicles to offset any adverse effects.

Road Building

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of road building in England.

Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend intends to announce the results of his review of the road programme shortly.

Mr. Burns: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given such joy and pleasure to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), will my hon. Friend the Minister give equal joy to my constituents? Will he ensure that a statement is made before we rise for Easter so that my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) can discover whether the unloved—indeed, the hated—proposed M12 from the M25 to Chelmsford will be ditched, thus ending the uncertainty and the blight of the green belt around that area?

Mr. Key: It is not surprising that my hon. Friend is so much loved in his constituency given that he makes such powerful representations. I must not pre-empt the outcome of the review by commenting on individual schemes. I hope that we shall be able to announce the result of the review before Easter.

Mr. Harvey: Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State for the Environment that we cannot continue to see the number of motor cars increasing so that life becomes dominated by them? Does he agree also that the car should be our servant and not our master? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that building roads leads to increased traffic? Will he introduce a comprehensive White Paper on all aspects of transport policy and use it as the foundation for a concerted transport policy?

Mr. Key: It goes without saying that there is not a chink of light between us on these issues. That was demonstrated last week by our announcement in planning policy guidance note 13. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The problems lie not with the stock of cars but with the journeys that they make, the times of day when those journeys are made, their purpose and the


standards of emissions. Those are the important matters. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Transport Report of 1994, which was published 10 days ago, he will learn that there is no need for us to publish yet another paper to make that point.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is an urgent need to clarify whether an outer orbital road leading west from the Al20 through Essex and Hertfordshire will be built as there is considerable apprehension in villages in my constituency and others in west Essex and Hertfordshire about the destruction that such a road could cause?

Mr. Key: Yes, I do.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister say now what proportion of the present road building plans will be abandoned and how many will be deferred?

Mr. Key: No. I cannot pre-empt the review that my right hon. Friend will seek to conclude before Easter.

Road Crashes

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will repeat the research into the comparative contributions to injury road crashes of the road environment, road user behaviour and vehicle condition.

Mr. Key: No. There is no reason to believe that such a project would produce significantly different results from the earlier research. It would not, therefore, be the most effective use of road safety research funds.

Mr. Bottomley: I would not dispute that, but if we have managed virtually to halve the number of fatalities on our roads over the years, it would surely be worth while moving on to consider the interrelationship between the vehicle, the road environment and the road user. Will we continue to undertake detailed research to assertain what further measures can be taken that will have a practical effect? One reason why we have done so well is that we have based various measures on research findings.

Mr. Key: Yes. I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done over many years on road safety. He is right to stress that what matters is solid research and the basing of policies on the statistical evidence that is provided. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that there could be some merit in further research, especially on vehicle standards, in which substantial improvements have taken place over the past 20 years. We might expect those improvements to be reflected in the percentage of accidents that are due to vehicle defects. That is why my Department will continue to spend a substantial sum on road research.

Mr. Barnes: Could such research tell us which are the responsibilities of the European Union and which are those of the United Kingdom? Transport obviously goes throughout Europe and we need clearly determined divisions. Such research could be disseminated throughout Europe. The results of research undertaken in other parts of Europe could be made available to us so that we know what action needs to be taken.

Mr. Key: Only last Thursday, I opened a conference in the Methodist central hall in London on access to European research by more than 200 British research institutes,

university departments and private sector researchers as well as local authorities. There is no difficulty in defining what is European and what is British in many areas of research. The issue is straightforward. If the hon. Gentleman would like to know more about that, I am sure that I could help him.

Mr. Mans: In answer to Question 4 on traffic calming, my hon. Friend said that calming measures have substantially reduced pedestrian and cyclist deaths. Will he consider again the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) that further research be undertaken to ascertain whether specific sums could be allocated to schemes that have clearly been successful in the past and would be more successful in future if there were more of them?

Mr. Key: It was my hon. Friend's Bill that brought in traffic calming measures, so we all have a great deal for which to thank him. I give my hon. Friend my word that there is a substantial amount of ongoing research in these areas which will continue to be undertaken. By the expenditure of modest sums, many lives can be saved—that is a fact we cannot ignore.

Ms Walley: If the Minister is telling the House that research is so important, why can we not have a real commitment to independent research? Why is he going ahead with the proposal to privatise the Transport Research Laboratory in Crowthorne? Will he tell us that he will do exactly what he has done with the Vehicle Inspectorate? Do we not owe it to all those families who have had people injured or killed in road accidents to do everything possible in terms of transport research?

Mr. Key: Yes, but it is a matter not just of research but of driver behaviour. That is why we are undertaking a whole range of measures which will ensure that there are safer drivers on our roads. Those measures include the theory test, the engineering of better roads and the manufacture of safer cars. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it quite clear what he is minded to do about the future of that excellent organisation, the Transport Research Laboratory, and he will be announcing the way forward shortly.

Sir Anthony Grant: As most motor vehicle accidents are caused by the lunatic practice of vehicles driving too close to each other, and as research in other countries has shown that technologically it is perfectly possible to put a stop to that practice, what are the Government doing about this matter?

Mr. Key: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend as an acknowledged member of the Guild of Experienced Motorists. Such research has been done not only overseas but in this country at the Transport Research Laboratory as a joint European research project. I have been in vehicles at the research laboratory and it is perfectly possible to do as my hon. Friend suggests, but it is quite expensive and the research is in its early stages. That does not mean that we should stop now, and we will not stop. We will continue the research because it can save lives and lead to better management of traffic, which means better use of the roads that we have.

Station Staffing

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many stations within the Network SouthEast operating region are unstaffed after 6 pm and at weekends; and if he will provide comparable figures for 1979.

Mr. Freeman: There are approximately 1,000 stations in the Network SouthEast operational area. British Rail management informs me that approximately 80 per cent. of Network SouthEast stations are unstaffed after 6 pm, approximately 30 per cent. are unstaffed on Saturdays, and 50 per cent. are unstaffed on Sundays.

Mrs. Prentice: Is not it an absolute disgrace that four out of five of our stations are unstaffed after 6 o'clock in the evening, given that, as the Minister must be aware, at least two assaults take place every day on Network SouthEast stations? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at stations such as Lee in my constituency, women are frightened to travel on trains because there are no station staff and that British Rail is losing money because there are no staff in the booking halls either?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady is right. I think that British Rail is losing revenue because of the perception of fear. That is the situation in the public sector. Once we begin to franchise railway services, matters will improve because there will be more commercial activity at the stations and because private sector operators will want to see more passengers using the trains and will be likely to have more staff and use the existing staff more flexibly.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister stop trying to run away from his responsibility? After being in power for 15 years—during which time they have run down the staffing of so many stations—why do the Government not now accept their responsibility in this area and get the staff back to ensure that the public are safe and can pay their fares, that Network SouthEast can increase its revenue and that we can have a better rail service now?

Mr. Freeman: That will happen if the hon. Gentleman and his supporters back the principle of passenger rail franchising.

Natural Gas Vehicles

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has carried out into the effectiveness as a form of transport of vehicles powered by natural gas.

Mr. Key: Two studies are already in hand. I am announcing a third study today, involving trials of natural gas and other popular alternative fuels.

Mr. Lidington: I am grateful for that reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that gas-powered vehicles produce far fewer noxious emissions than vehicles powered by internal combustion engines? Will he talk with his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury to see whether the present excessively high rates of duty on natural gas as a vehicle fuel could be reduced to allow those environmentally friendly vehicles to gain in popularity?

Mr. Key: Rates of fuel duty are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, Customs and Excise is considering a fresh

approach by which duty would relate to weight rather than to volume and to unleaded rather than leaded petrol. That would provide a simple and equitable taxation framework as the energy content of compressed natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas are similar when related to weight.

Heavy Lorries

Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the relative friendliness to the environment of 44-tonne lorries and 38-tonne lorries.

Mr. MacGregor: I see a positive advantage to the use of 44-tonne lorries for combined road-rail transport. That means fewer lorries, it transfers freight from road to rail and so benefits the environment.

Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend realise that my constituents are concerned about the increasing size of lorries, and are particularly concerned about the way in which lorries use side streets as short cuts? Should not we be doing more about encouraging rail-road routes?

Mr. MacGregor: That is precisely what the increase to 44 tonnes for combined road-rail transport will do. It is also important to underline that that does not actually mean larger lorries. Those lorries will, in themselves, get more freight back on to rail and, in so doing, assist the process. However, in themselves, they do not mean larger lorries.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Secretary of State agree that the history of increases in lorry weight and size is one not of a reduced number of lorries, but of an increase in larger lorries on our roads? Although the increase to 44 tonnes may not involve much greater external dimensions, will not it mean potentially greater axle weights and more damage to our roads? Does not the Secretary of State realise that, if we do not want those juggernauts going to every nook and corner of our country, we must keep a right of veto in the Common Market because this is about standardisation of lorry weights throughout the Common Market and has nothing to do with the advantage of the United Kingdom?

Mr. MacGregor: The decision about 44-tonne combined road-rail transport, which was entirely mine, was taken to encourage more freight on to rail. With regard to road wear, a 44-tonne vehicle on six axles has the same effect on a road as a 38-tonne vehicle on five axles. We are insisting that 44-tonne vehicles have six axles.

Lower Thames Crossing

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the lower Thames crossing study.

Mr. Key: Consultants were appointed in May 1992 for a two-year study of the need for, and feasibility of, a lower Thames crossing downstream of Dartford. They are making good progress and their final report is expected this summer.

Dr. Spink: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. The A130 Canvey Island link dualling and the Saddlers Farm roundabout improvements form part of the lower Thames crossing consideration. Is my hon. Friend


aware that the Lib-Lab pact in Essex county council has recently suspended all design work on those two important schemes? Is not that shameful?

Mr. Key: I am surprised in one sense because I know that the A130 was a contender for transport supplementary grant. That means that it will not be available later. On the other hand, I am not surprised because I happen to have two newspaper headlines from different ends of the country, one of which refers to the Liberals describing a bypass as an "environmental obscenity" and the other which states:
Liberals back call for a motorway.
There we are.

Airport Privatisations

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it is his policy to encourage local authorities to privatise their airports.

Mr. Norris: Yes. It is indeed our policy to encourage local authorities to privatise their airports.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend agree that Manchester airport has been a great success story? Does he further agree that perhaps if Manchester airport were privatised, it would be an even greater success story?

Mr. Norris: I am delighted to see my hon. Friend here this afternoon and I confirm that I agreed with absolutely every word he said. There is a benefit there measured literally in hundreds of millions of pounds available to the hard-pressed charge payers in Manchester.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that the reality with Manchester airport is that the local authorities in the area have been prepared to invest in that airport over many years? There is no information, or anything else, to show that that success will not best continue in the public sector. In view of that, would not privatisation be absolute nonsense?

Mr. Norris: One has only to look at the success of the British Airports Authority to see how wrong is the hon. Gentleman. However well Manchester airport is doing in the public sector, it will do a damn sight better for all concerned in the private sector.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that if Manchester airport is to continue its successful expansion, it has no place whatever in the local authority sector?

Mr. Norris: It is a general proposition that private operators are better at operating companies such as Manchester airport than local authorities, which are sensibly constituted for a different purpose. On that basis, my hon. Friend is entirely right. The great thing is that it would be very much in the interests of the people of the region not only that the airport flourishes but that the proceeds are devoted more appropriately to the many pressing needs in that area.

Mr. Gunnell: Is not it the height of hypocrisy for Tory Members, including the Prime Minister, last week to slag off Manchester city council because of its capital debt and then to take measures to get rid of one of the council's major assets, which has achieved its quality because of the superb work done in Manchester? Why do not the

Government end the hypocrisy and show that they are willing to pay tribute to local authority enterprise, which has given us the positive airport in Manchester that exists there?

Mr. Norris: I shall quietly tell the hon. Gentleman later what the link is between slagging off Manchester for its large public debt and the sale of an asset that could reduce that debt. I should have thought that that was obvious to most people. Certainly, in this case, if the council were serious about running its financial affairs prudently, it would welcome and, indeed, promote the sale of Manchester airport as a valuable asset.

Rail Services (Competition)

Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effect he expects the introduction of competition to have on improvements in rail services.

Mr. Freeman: We expect the introduction of competition to result in increased frequencies of service in response to more extensive marketing, and lower fares for certain services.

Mr. Robinson: Once again, my right hon. Friend is talking about getting more passengers back on to the track. Will he join me in condemning the scare stories that are being put about, especially by the Liberal Democrats in towns such as Frome and Bruton, that stations are to close on 1 April, when we have improved the procedures and made it more difficult to close stations?

Mr. Freeman: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Liberal Democrats in the south-west of England are deliberately engendering fears in the minds of passengers by forecasting station closures that will not happen.

Mr. Olner: In these days of increased competition, is the Minister aware of the disastrous route on the west coast main line? Today, literally thousands of passengers from early in the morning until early this afternoon have been delayed, yet again, by signalling problems? How does he think competition will assist that line without the Government putting money into the infrastructure?

Mr. Freeman: We confidently expect resignalling work on the west coast main line, to be done by a consortium of private sector companies, to begin next summer, and that the work will be done faster than the public sector would have been able to do it.

Transatlantic Air Routes

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made towards liberalisation of transatlantic air routes.

Mr. MacGregor: Now that the United States Secretary of Transportation has renewed the BA-USAir code sharing—a move which I welcome—I hope that we can resume the talks on liberalisation.

Mr. Robertson: In view of the substantial liberalisation package that the United Kingdom has tabled, which includes the opening of all regional airports including Aberdeen in the north-east of Scotland, is not it totally unreasonable for the United States Government, who purport to support liberalisation, to refuse further to negotiate in order to achieve it?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that we tabled proposals that took liberalisation substantially further than anything that we had previously offered. He is right to draw attention to the fact that we proposed immediately completely to open up regional airports everywhere, and also offered further improvements at Heathrow and Gatwick. I greatly regretted that the United States called off the talks. I have been trying to get them going again. Now that the United States has given the 12-months continuation of the BA-USAir code sharing, I hope that we can take up the cudgels and try to reach agreement.

British Rail Maintenance Depot, Eastleigh

Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to maximise orders for the British Rail maintenance depot in Eastleigh.

Mr. Freeman: The Government's plans for transferring British Rail Maintenance Ltd. to the private sector offer the best prospects for the future of the Eastleigh depot. A privately owned company will be free to bid for railway rolling stock maintenance throughout the railway industry and for other business.

Mr. Denham: Is not the Minister aware that yet another 180 jobs were lost at BRML in Eastleigh last week and that many jobs at BRML could be secured if work that has been done there in the past continued to be allocated to Eastleigh? Does he accept that he has never given any instructions to the British Rail board to maximise the work that is being done at Eastleigh depot? Are not those workers, that community and my constituents suffering from the Government's dogma, which insists on pushing work out to other companies rather than continuing to be done at BRML?

Mr. Freeman: It would be highly improper for the Government to issue instructions to British Rail to place contracts anywhere. That is what the Opposition would do, and look at the problems that they faced in the 1970s.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to agree that the reason for the reduced work load at Eastleigh and at other BRML depots is that modern technology in building railway rolling stock means that less heavy maintenance is needed halfway through their lives. Why does not the hon. Gentleman adopt a positive rather than negative attitude to the future of the Eastleigh depot?

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Public Interest Immunity Certificates

Mr. Rooker: To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions in the past 10 years his Department has issued to the courts a variation of the standard form public interest immunity certificates.

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): No record has been kept of the number of public interest immunity certificates signed by a Law Officer over the last 10 years. Any certificate would have been specifically drafted for the particular case.

Mr. Rooker: If that is the case, and as it appears that certificates are made up as we go along and that there is no standard form, how can some Ministers stand up in public

and say that they had no discretion but to sign what was put in front of them while other Ministers are allowed to write their own certificates? Surely that is an abuse of power which the Attorney-General has failed to bring to heel. Does not the evidence that has been published and put before the Scott inquiry this morning condemn the right hon. and learned Gentleman for negligence in that respect?

The Attorney-General: I do not think that any one of the points made by the hon. Gentleman on the subject is correct. I am to give evidence to the Scott inquiry on Thursday and I look forward to doing so.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the purpose of public interest immunity certificates is simply to put the facts before the judge and that it is for the judge to decide whether those should be disclosed to the defence?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If a balance is to be struck—unless it is in a clear case—it is to be struck not by a Minister, but by the judge.

Mr. Fraser: Can the Attorney-General say whether the President of the Board of Trade was correct when he said that the attention of the judge and the defence would be drawn to his specially abbreviated form of public interest immunity certificate?

The Attorney-General: As the hon. Gentleman knows well, those matters are being investigated by Lord Justice Scott.

Prosecutions (Victims' Interests)

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Attorney-General whether the interests of victims are taken into account by the Crown Prosecution Service when deciding whether to prosecute.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): When the Crown Prosecution Service is deciding whether to continue proceedings the interests of the victim are an important factor in determining the balance of the public interest.

Mr. Coombs: My hon. and learned Friend will be well aware of the strong public feeling on the recent Roberts case in Plymouth. Is he absolutely satisfied that the interests of the families of people such as Jonathan Roberts are sufficiently taken into consideration by the judicial system?

The Solicitor-General: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already called for the papers in that case and in another case in which the same judge sentenced the following day. My right hon. and learned Friend will receive advice from Treasury Counsel and will then make up his mind whether the sentences were unduly lenient. If he comes to that conclusion, he will refer the cases to the Court of Appeal for review.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Solicitor-General agree that many of the problems could be resolved if, from time to time, the Court of Appeal reviewed tariffs in general?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman will agree that that is one of the functions that the Court of Appeal carries out from time to time when my right hon. and


learned Friend the Attorney-General refers sentences to it as unduly lenient. It also does that in other appropriate circumstances, as it sees fit.

Mr. Nicholls: Is not it a fact that even where a tariff exists, the judge still has the ultimate responsibility to set a sentence between the minimum and maximum prescribed by law? Ultimately, it is his job to make that decision and to stand by it.

The Solicitor-General: The judiciary is independent of political influence. Anyone who has had any experience as a judge in court knows that sentencing requires sense and sensibility. It is one thing to sentence as a paper exercise and another to do it when one can see the whites of the defendant's eyes.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Solicitor-General aware of the concern throughout Britain about the rarity of the preferring of charges of manslaughter where death has been caused by careless or dangerous driving? Will he look into the exceptional circumstances that are deemed to be necessary to bring such charges? Will he have some discussion about the matter with the Crown Prosecution Service?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is a little behind the times. Recently, we increased the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving and other similar offences from five to 10 years. In any event, in the case of Seymour, a House of Lords decision made plain what are the appropriate circumstances for preferring a charge of manslaughter.

Bail Objections

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Attorney-General what matters are taken into account by the Crown Prosecution Service when deciding whether to object to bail.

The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service takes into account the considerations and exceptions to bail set out in the Bail Act 1976 and any other relevant information available to it, including material from the police, the probation service and other sources.

Mr. Ainsworth: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the widespread public concern about the number of people who re-offend while out on bail? Is not that a dangerous loophole, which law-abiding people throughout Britain have a right to see closed as soon as possible?

The Solicitor-General: It is, and we are closing it. The first measure that we have taken is already on the statute book. The Bail (Amendment) Act 1993, which is the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen), will give the prosecution the right of appeal against the decision of a magistrates court to grant bail. Also, two provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, if enacted, will remove the presumption of bail for defendants charged with indictable and either-way offences and refuse bail in cases of persons charged with homicide or rape, if they have previously been convicted of either offence.

Public Interest Immunity Certificates

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General what re-assessment he is making of the operation of public interest immunity certificates.

The Attorney-General: Public interest immunity certificates are one of the subjects under investigation by Lord Justice Scott. The Government will give careful consideration to any conclusions and recommendations in his report.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Attorney-General realise that in asking the House to believe what he told my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) earlier—that the Department has not kept records of the number of people who signed the certificates in the past 10 years—he must be guilty of either a cover-up or incompetence? When the President of the Board of Trade refused to sign the certificate, did not it cross the Attorney-General's mind that he should have told those people who were heading for the court that it was wrong for them to be sent to gaol when he was bending the law on their behalf?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman would do well to wait for my evidence on Thursday.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend turn his mind to the best guidance on the use of public interest immunity certificates, which is contained in footnotes in a law book in print so small that most people commenting on that, whether in the House or in the press, have not been able to read it? Will he consider whether an enlarged version of what is in the law book could be made available to everyone?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is right that the footnotes to the "Supreme Court Practice" are in print suitable for a prayer book. An enlarging photocopier might be of considerable assistance.

War Crimes

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to bring prosecutions under the War Crimes Act 1991.

The Attorney-General: The Metropolitan police war crimes unit is still actively pursuing its inquiries under the War Crimes Act 1991. Those inquiries are not yet complete and the question of a possible prosecution or prosecutions cannot be considered until they are concluded.

Mr. Townsend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that when that legislation came before the House, many Conservative Members voted against it, including Cabinet Ministers? Does he appreciate that it is costing millions of pounds? About 10 detectives are being employed pursuing it, and would not they be much better employed seeking serious villains in Greater London?

The Attorney-General: I understand my hon. Friend's point of view, but the House passed the Bill by a large majority and it is now being followed through.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Population Initiative

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by the Overseas Development Administration since 1991 in implementing its population initiative.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): Forty-five new bilateral projects have now been funded, involving commitments of £37.5 million. A further £54.6 million of additional multilateral aid has been committed.

Sir David Knox: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress that has been made. What steps are being taken to encourage other countries, especially those in the European Union, to give further assistance to population initiatives?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, we promote population initiatives wherever we can. We must press the idea more on the European Community. The ODA helped to plan and present a population seminar in Brussels on 28 February, which was attended by a large number of senior EC officials. We are also helping the Commission to plan new programmes in Egypt and in Kenya.

Aid Criteria

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he proposes to the criteria for the choice of countries to receive overseas aid from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We continue to give aid in the light of need and to promote economic and social development.

Sir Michael Neubert: Is not Dr. Mahathir's letter to the Financial Times confirmation of the damage done by the persistently negative character of our media, aided and abetted by Her Majesty's official Opposition, who are, with cavalier disregard, prepared to put, in the one case, proprietorial profit and, in the other, partisan political advantage, ahead of British people's jobs? Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the money for the Pergau dam was in the form of a loan, that that loan, with a British project, would have gone towards paying a British company and that, in the world we live in, such assistance makes every kind of sense?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can confirm that it was in the form of a loan on concessional terms. Of course we are proud of the fact that we have a free press in Britain, but I have to agree with my hon. Friend that some newspapers have written nonsense and made some serious inaccuracies. As for the role of the Opposition in that, I can conclude only that they somehow seem to believe that there is good politics in destroying British jobs.

Sir David Steel: Will the Minister consider the example of the Governments of Japan, of the Netherlands, of Denmark and of other countries, all of whom make the spending of the recipient country on military matters one of the criteria for deciding their aid budget? If they decide that Indonesia is rich enough to spend vast sums on armaments, why do we alone decide that it should receive large quantities of aid?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to allege that Indonesia is spending such a high percentage of its gross domestic product on armaments. It is spending less than 2 per cent. of its gross domestic product on armaments. Indonesia is a fine example of a country with a sound record of economic management. In 1970, about 60 per cent. of the population was living below the poverty line; by 1990, only 15 per cent. were. When we speak about what other countries are doing, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the fact that 5 per cent. of the British aid budget is for aid and trade provision projects such as Pergau, compared with the 14 per cent. of the German aid budget and the 28 per cent. of the Austrian aid budget spent in that way.

Mr. Wells: Will my hon. Friend include in the criteria that he is developing countries whose economies have been ruined by policies pursued by the European Community—for example, the banana protocol and banana GATT arrangements, which will undoubtedly undermine the Caribbean banana industry?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We shall consider in any part of the world countries with the right criteria—those with a per capita income of less than $700 a year—for ATP projects that would benefit the country, the aid programme, British industry and British jobs.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that the Opposition will always support projects that are developmentally sound? If so, I trust that he will dismiss the views of Sir Timothy Lankester, which have been disowned by the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert). On the allocation of limited aid funds, does the Minister accept that some countries are absolutely crippled by debt? For instance, a third of Uganda's revenue is being used to service debt at the expense of health, education, pure water and other important needs. Will he therefore encourage the International Monetary Fund and the World bank to take a more reasonable view of those appalling problems than that taken by some Conservative Members?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the ATP programme, because it was invented by the last Labour Government. I am glad to say that the Pergau project will be worth 29,000 man years for British workers and that 110 British subcontractors and suppliers will gain business from it. The hon. Gentleman knows that Britain has led the way in debt relief. In 1990, we launched the Trinidad terms—18 countries, 13 of which are in Africa, have benefited so far from that—and we have relieved developing countries of more than £1 billion of the aid debt burden.

Environmental Sustainability

Mr. Deva: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Overseas Development Administration takes to ensure that all aid projects are assessed for their environmental sustainability.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All projects are subject to environmental assessment according to the guidelines and procedures set out in the ODA manual of environmental appraisal.

Mr. Deva: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that environmental concerns in developing


countries will be further strengthened by the recent signing of the global environmental facility? Will he elaborate on how that might help?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes. Following the recent negotiations in Geneva, I am delighted to report that the GEF was successfully restructured and replenished. Britain pledged £89.5 million worth of support. The global environmental facility will help to alleviate global environmental threats. The agreement must be good news for the implementation of the climate change and biodiversity conventions.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the Pergau dam proposal was first put to the ODA, did not it fail the appraisal procedure to which the Minister referred? On the so-called "loan" given to the Malaysians, who is paying the difference between the rate at which the Malaysians received the money and the cost of borrowing the money in the United Kingdom? Is not the difference paid by British taxpayers?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The environmental and social impacts of the Pergau project are negligible compared with other dam schemes. The review of environmental information concluded that there were no environmental issues that would prejudice funding. The project has incurred minimal adverse impact on primary rain forest and rare wildlife species. Obviously, taxpayers, through the aid budget, fund the concessional nature of the loan.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Are not the various projects funded by Britain in the tropical rain forests in Brazil precise examples of the fact that our aid programme is devoted to environmental sustainability?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A great deal of care is taken to ensure that all projects are appraised for environmental

impact. The ODA has an environmental appraisal manual, which was first published in 1989. Some 1,800 copies have been distributed, all staff are trained in using the manual and training is on-going.

Pergau Dam

Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to withdrawing from the Pergau dam project.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: None. Construction is on schedule for completion in 1996.

Ms Eagle: Given that it is now clear that the ODA contribution to the Pergau dam project has been used to facilitate the accumulation of massive profits from privatisation for a few rich Malaysian individuals, will the Minister consider asking the Malaysian Government whether they believe that overseas aid is being abused?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Some £4 billion worth of British exports have been assisted by the aid and trade provision. I have set out the benefits that have derived from the Pergau contract. Ministers have nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of.

Mr. John Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that most people are amazed at the Opposition's campaign against a project that has resulted in the trebling of British exports to Malaysia and that they regard the campaign against the project as stupid and inane? The campaign is putting at risk tens of thousands of jobs in this country. The Opposition should, instead, be commending the Government for helping British industry.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I have said, Malaysia provides a prime example of a Government who have pulled themselves out of poverty as a result of some measure of project aid.

Points of Order

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, under Standing Order 127, the Select Committee on European Legislation has a duty to report to the House when there arise matters of legal and political importance with regard to documents that have been laid before the Council of Ministers. The Standing Order refers also to documents laid by one institution of the Community with another. You will be aware also that, unlike the treaty on European Union, which was signed at Maastricht, the negotiations between the Union and membership applicants are a matter not for intergovernmental negotiations but for decision by the institutions of the Community and its Council within its own treaties. Documents relating to the blocking minority figures 23 and 27 have been laid before the Council and, indeed, were discussed last week and will be discussed tomorrow.
Are you, Madam Speaker, aware that no report relating to the matters placed before the Select Committee on European Legislation has been made by memorandum? As hon. Members are under the impression that the resolution of the House of 24 October 1990 requires Ministers not to take decisions before such scrutiny has taken place, are not the Government beholden to report by memorandum and by placing those documents before the House so that hon. Members may have an opportunity to debate their merits and, indeed, their importance before a Minister indicates accession or agreement? Will you, Madam Speaker, so rule?

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to raise this matter. I can only repeat to him and to the House what I have already said to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash): that no text relevant to the issue he wishes to debate is available for scrutiny by the Select Committee on European Legislation. The chapter entitled "Institutions" in the document that has been made available is not yet agreed, but the document itself relates to a process that is actually taking place between national Governments. National Parliaments are not, therefore, yet involved, and nothing has happened that involves the responsibility of the Chair of this House. I regret that at this stage I am unable to help the hon. Gentleman further.

Mr. Spearing: I am much obliged to you, Madam Speaker, for your ruling relating to that resolution. Will you please confirm that, whereas the Government may have—indeed, have—laid before the House documents

concerning legislation relating to tobacco advertising, to the social matters that are to be debated this Wednesday and to harmonisation of postal services, and whereas the House may debate those, the Government will not be required to take this action unless the resolution is changed? But nor does the resolution debar the Government from placing the documents if they so wish.

Madam Speaker: I think that my statement is absolutely clear, if the hon. Gentleman will look at it.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to raise with you the important subject of the accountability of Ministers to this House. Information from the evidence of Mr. Alan Moses to the Scott inquiry became available to hon. Members only this morning. The subject was raised during questions to the Attorney-General and he brushed aside questions by saying that the House will have to wait until Thursday, when he gives his evidence to the Scott inquiry.
Although the Attorney-General has a duty to give evidence to the Scott inquiry, surely he has a more important duty to give evidence to this House. Will you, Madam Speaker, rule that the accountability of Law Officers to this House is supreme and indivisible?

Madam Speaker: Ministers are of course free to reply to questions in their own way; it is not for the Speaker to put words into their mouths. But if Members are not satisfied, they can seek to pursue issues by way of debate. They cannot, however, insist on being given information in the form that they would like at Question Time. It is up to a Minister to answer as he thinks fit at Question Time.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and I, at business questions last Thursday, raised the issue of the treatment of asylum seekers by the Home Office, and the fact that more than 100 people are on hunger strike. I understand that they have been dispersed to prisons throughout the country—their only crime, seeking asylum in this country.
May I ask whether the Home Secretary has given you any intimation of his intention to hold a meeting with hon. Members who have written to him asking for such a meeting, or of his intention to come to the House to make a statement on the appalling travesty of justice that is taking place in this country?

Madam Speaker: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's first question—I do not know the intentions of the Home Secretary—but I can tell him that I have not been. informed that any Minister is seeking to make a statement on that issue.

Orders of the Day — Insolvency (No. 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is short but it is technical. Although I shall need to be precise in some areas, I hope that I shall be able to address the broad issues without becoming enmeshed in too much detail.
First, I should outline the circumstances in which we have found it necessary to introduce this Bill. The Insolvency Act 1986 contains two measures, administration and administrative receivership—the latter is known in Scotland simply as receivership—which are used frequently to rescue financially troubled companies or to save viable parts of their businesses. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer simply to receivers and receivership, but the reference will be to administrative receiver and administrative receivership in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and receiver and receivership in Scotland.
Putting together a rescue package and seeing it through to a conclusion often takes several months—if not longer. During this time the business has to be kept going and the administrator or receiver will need to keep on at least part of the work force. The legislation, however, gives him a period of grace of only 14 days before he has to decide whether to adopt their contracts of employment. In the case of administration, the effect of adoption is that in practice the obligations under the contracts of employment become expenses of the proceedings. In an administrative receivership, however, in addition to the company's continuing liability the receiver also becomes personally liable under the contract.
Fourteen days is not a long time. It will rarely be long enough to effect a rescue or conclude a sale. Administrators and administrative receivers were clearly concerned about the implications of adopting contracts of employment right from the time the legislation came into force at the end of 1986. As early as February 1987 the receivers, in the case of Specialised Mouldings, obtained directions from the High Court that it was possible to avoid adopting such contracts but to continue to employ the employees.
From this there developed a practice whereby receivers would send letters to employees whom they wished to retain saying in essence that they were not adopting their contracts and that they accepted no personal liability, but that they would continue to pay wages, salaries and pension contributions as before. In due course this seems to have become standard practice in cases of administration too, although the legislation does not provide for an administrator to have personal liability.
On this basis, matters proceeded—apparently satisfactorily—for more than six years. However, in July 1993 a decision of the High Court in the case of Paramount Airways Ltd (No. 3) cast doubt on the effectiveness of the disclaimer—if I may call it that—which by then was being routinely used. There was an appeal to the Court of Appeal

in February this year which upheld the decision of the High Court. Moreover, although it was an administration case, the judgment also raised serious doubts about the effectiveness of the disclaimer in receivership cases. Since then, the general perception has been that it is no longer safe to place any reliance on the use of disclaimers, with the result that if employees are not dismissed within the 14-day grace period their contracts will be held to have been impliedly adopted.
The consequence of the Paramount judgment is that the contractual rights arising from the termination by administrators of contracts of employment that they had adopted, even unwittingly, constitute a priority charge on the company's assets. Insolvency practitioners concluded that the effect of that might be so to encumber the company that there would be no substance left upon which to base an effective rescue package. Understandably, they were even more alarmed at the prospect, in receiverships, of incurring substantial personal liability. The result was likely to be that they would resort to wholesale dismissal of employees unless the business could be sold within 14 days. That would not have been good for business, employment or the economy.
Right hon. and hon Members will recall that on 14 March my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made a statement to the House on the issue. He said that he intended to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity which would enable an administrator or a receiver to adopt a contract of employment with more restricted effects than at present. That commitment is now honoured in the Bill. The aim is to discourage administrators and receivers from dismissing employees simply because of the fear of the extensive liabilities which may be incurred—in the case of receivers, extensive personal liabilities—as a result of the adoption of the contracts. Under the proposals, only qualifying liabilities, which I shall shortly describe, would be incurred.
In the case of administration, that aim would be achieved by the amendments to section 19 of the Insolvency Act 1986 contained in clause 1 of the Bill. Those amendments provide that only qualifying liabilities would in future be covered by the statutory priority charge over a company's assets. Qualifying liabilities are defined broadly as wages or salary or contributions to an occupational pension scheme in respect of services rendered after the adoption of the contract. That would also cover rights to holiday pay and sickness pay arising after adoption.
In the case of administrative receiverships, the aim is achieved by amendments to section 44 of the Act, which are contained in clause 2 of the Bill. Those amendments also restrict the receiver's personal liability—and consequently his statutory right of indemnity from the company's assets—to only qualifying liabilities as I have just described them.
Clause 3 of the Bill makes provision for amendment of section 57 of the Act. It introduces the limited personal liability of the new scheme into the Scottish system of receivership. Clause 4 and schedule 1 provide for the Bill's effects to be brought about in Northern Ireland by amendment of the relevant provisions of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.
There will be, of course, entirely understandable concern that the proposed amendments should not disadvantage employees whose contract is terminated by an administrator or receiver. They do not.
Liabilities, other than qualifying liabilities, arising from a contract of employment will remain, but they will be treated as an unsecured claim against the company. Moreover, the proposals will not affect the employee's position under employment law.
This measure is not intended to overturn the decision in the Paramount Airways case, which may go to appeal. It would apply only to contracts that are adopted on or after 15 March 1994. Any contract adopted before then will not be affected by the changes.
It is hoped, of course, that the proposals will be adopted and that as a result it will prove possible more often to return companies to viability or to sell their businesses as going concerns. In that way, employees will keep their jobs. They would not be affected by the proposals because their contracts of employment would not have been terminated.
That brings me back to the concerns that have caused us to act so quickly to resolve the difficulty. Those concerns are recognised on both sides of the House. In that context, I should like to thank the Opposition for their constructive approach in facilitating the measure. It cannot be in anyone's interests for administrators or receivers to feel constrained to close businesses and dismiss employees because they cannot risk an otherwise viable rescue plan being subverted by the burden of rights that arise when they find it necessary to terminate a contract of employment that they have adopted, or because they would be personally liable for those costs.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Bill is very narrow and I suppose that it will remain so. As I am suspicious about what the Government might do, however, and as I have read in the newspapers that many Tory Members of Parliament are heading for bankruptcy, can the Minister assure us that this narrow Bill will not be amended here or in another place to ensure that they are rescued from bankruptcy? He says that he does not believe in intervening in the market, so will he give us an assurance that, in the life of this Parliament, no Tory Members who have got up to their necks in debt with Lloyd's will be rescued by the Government, which means by the taxpayer?

Mr. Hamilton: Like the hon. Gentleman, I wear my badge of poverty with some pride. I am not one of those people who have ever been a part of Lloyd's or a party to any other investment in which I stood to lose any substantial sum. I cannot foretell the circumstances in which the House or another place might amend the Bill. As a general rule, Ministers are not too keen on their legislation being amended. I do not propose to amend the Bill and my proposals are before the House. I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requests, but it is not for me to foretell the future.
It cannot be in anyone's interests for businesses that might otherwise be saved to be closed down as a result of the adventitious circumstances that gave rise to the need for us to legislate in this form today.
The statement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 14 March was welcomed on both sides of the House. The Bill will give effect to his proposals, and on that basis I commend it to right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for his short and technical introduction to our Second Reading debate on what he describes as the broad issues. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) brought to the attention of the House one of those issues by mentioning one of the great difficulties that may lie ahead for the Government. They may find that they are forced into different streams and torrents, and that they have to distort the meaning of the Bill.
When the President of the Board of Trade, who is not here today, made his statement last week, he reminded me of the opening of the first motorway in Lancashire. Harold Macmillan, who was then Prime Minister, opened it, but two weeks later it was closed for repairs. At the time, Harold Wilson said that it was a pity that the Prime Minister had been invited to the opening but not to the closure.
We cannot lay the blame for the Insolvency Act 1986 at the door of the President of the Board of Trade. He was on a short trek through the wilderness at that time and was writing such lively and entertaining books as, "Where There's A Will" and showing us what a real interventionist in the economy can do. However, the right hon. Gentleman had to tell the House about the difficulties that resulted from the 1986 Act.
The Under-Secretary of State took us a little way through the variety of legal circuits that have had to be followed. The Bill came about because of a court ruling in the case of Nicoll v. Cutts, followed by that in the case of Specialised Mouldings Ltd. on 13 February 1987. The latter judgment was never properly reported, which is astonishing. There was no report or transcript of the judgment, no note of the reasons why Mr. Justice Harman reached his conclusions and no details of the facts of the case were given. No helpful authority was given for the judgment; and that is not merely my view, but that of the Court of Appeal.
Since 1987, the Government and practitioners of insolvency law have known that they had little authority for allowing receivers to escape their liabilities by sending a letter saying that they had not adopted the contracts of employment. Everyone knew that that was bad and unsafe law, yet the Government did nothing about it. That says a lot about the Executive; it also says something about our legislature.
The legislation had its Committee stage, and experts served on the Committee. Time and again, Tories with expertise and knowledge are metaphorically bound and gagged in Committee: they are not allowed to say a single word that might delay the proceedings. Notwithstanding all that was said by insolvency practitioners at the time, the Bill reached the statute book—with a hidden timebomb ticking away under every insolvency practitioner in the country.
On 14 March, on the Floor of the House, the President of the Board of Trade promised this legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has said, Opposition Members are concerned about the public interest, and will facilitate the Bill's passage; nevertheless, we are anxious about certain omissions. One such omission—with which we may deal


later, in Committee—relates to law-of-property receivers who are sent in, on behalf of banks and building societies, to recover big single assets such as hotels and office blocks.
The Minister and his Department may well have accepted that hotels and office blocks do not necessarily employ staff, and that contracts of employment will not be involved in such cases; if they are not involved, they should not be included in the legislation. As has been said, however, when staff are involved they may need to remain involved. That suggests that an appropriate amendment should be tabled to cover the provisions of section 37 of the 1986 Act.
I listened with interest to the Minister's clarification of the Government's position on retrospection. He said that the Bill would not be retrospective but would take effect from 15 March. In 1964, we had a Labour Government, whose first act was to pass retrospective legislation in respect of Burmah Oil, to reverse a decision of the Law Lords in the national interest. I believe that the President of the Board of Trade is somewhat exercised by the question whether to start from the position of 14 or 15 March, or whether to go back to 1987: he said last week that there was a question of retrospection, and I believe that he was thinking very deeply about that.
The Bill raises a serious issue. The Minister seemed to be saying that he did not wish to overrule the decision of the Court of Appeal. However, he is doing what should have been done years ago—rectifying an error that turned up in the Insolvency Act 1986. I fear—as do insolvency practitioners—that a number of law suits may result from the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover mentioned Lloyd's of London; but professional indemnity insurers, who may have to pick up the tab, must be worried about the possibility of consequential claims on the insurance market. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), with his knowledge of insolvency matters, may wish to help us in that regard.
Perhaps the Minister will give us a fuller explanation in Committee, but I am not entirely sure that it is wise to make the Bill retrospective only to 15 March, rather than taking the retrospection back to 1987. The former date may create uncertainty among lawyers, insolvency practitioners and those who have lost their jobs in the past few years, and who may suddenly feel that they have a claim that can be honoured.
Let me deal with some of the points made last week. The Minister has rightly said that this is a narrow, technical Bill. However, my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) are still concerned about a matter that they raised then—the £205 redundancy money. That is not a huge sum in this day and age; it is certainly less than the average industrial wage. We feel that statutory redundancy money should be increased to bring it into line with that average.
As we are amending the 1986 Act, we should ask how that Act came to be such a disappointment. Was it overwhelmed by the number of insolvencies and bankruptcies that occurred in a recession that lasted three years? Was it overwhelmed by the number of firms that went into administration and receivership, or was the Bill simply flawed? Do those flaws still confront the House and insolvency practitioners?
We are pleased that the number of insolvencies is reducing, from the high of 5,734 appointments in administration and receivership in 1991 and 3,266 in 1992, but the target of 2,000 in 1994 hardly gives the impression that the economy is thriving.
More than 4,000 firms were wound up and more than 6,000 individuals were declared bankrupt in 1992–93 as a result of actions brought by Government Departments. Those figures came from the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs. Many of those actions were taken by the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. I fully accept that they must both look after taxpayers' interests, but these may be equally served by keeping men and women in work and businesses viable and solvent.
Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue specialised units involved in debt recovery take into account a variety of factors, such as the company's tax history, the need to ensure future compliance and expectations if a business continues to trade. Perhaps we will learn later today, or after publication of the Government's consultation paper on the future of insolvency law, whether the United Kingdom will go to the lengths of Australia, Denmark and Canada in reducing the preferential status of the taxman.

Mr. Derek Enright: I share the suspicions of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Has my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) considered the case of Unicorn Heritage plc, which took £200,000 from the Government and subsequently went bankrupt? That put many other firms into bankruptcy, yet Unicorn Heritage's investors were again awarded money direct from the Government in tax returns. People employed by that company, and also those who were on its board and who played a leading part, are still able to conduct other profitable businesses and have important jobs in the Treasury. Should not that scandal be put right in future, if not by the Bill?

Mr. Bell: I entirely agree. We have expressed concern on many occasions about phoenix companies that go into liquidation but whose directors rise from the ashes, whereas the work force pay a heavy penalty—which is aggravated by statutory redundancy money not being as much as it should be.
We will extend as much co-operation as we can to the Minister in the preparation of a proper insolvency Bill that can be appropriately debated at every stage. We want to identify how, out of the morass of insolvency, there may be more management and worker buy-outs and employee share ownership schemes, and how those could be developed as a first option for any company in difficulty. Employees who have invested their working lives in a company should enjoy a return by having some say in the company's survival and future.
We are looking, not for a technical Bill that modifies a weakness in the law that was perceived way back in 1987, but for a comprehensive review of insolvency law, to make it easier and cheaper to obtain an administration order, to abolish the law of distress, encouraging creditors and Government Departments to use accountants to look at alternatives before closing a business, and looking more closely at the moratorium aspects of business debts. We must move away from the concept of closing down viable businesses. We must establish a culture in which troubled companies, professional advisers, creditors and


Government are committed to ensuring that troubled businesses, when essentially sound, survive periods of economic downturn.
As we said earlier, in the public interest and that of workers, management and business who may be uncertain, we are happy to give the Bill latitude in the House after it has been given due debate on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. Nevertheless, the matter should have been brought to the House and the weakness in the law rectified a long time ago. We welcome the fact that the Government have now brought it to our attention.

4 pm

Mr. Neville Trotter: The hon. Member for Middlesborough (Mr. Bell) referred to my background as an accountant. I remind the House that I served on the Committee that considered the Insolvency Bill in 1985. The hon. Gentleman referred to, perhaps, the too hasty passage of that Bill. It was anything but hasty. It was an epic occasion, as I remember it, with more than 1,000 amendments tabled in the House. The debate went on for weeks and months. The Bill came out in a somewhat better form than many of us who served on the Committee thought likely as there had been so many amendments.
It might be helpful if I explain some of the background to the situation that we now face. It was nearly 10 years before the matter came before the court; in fact it came before the court shortly after the 1986 Act came into force on a case involving Specialised Mouldings Ltd. That case did not have the full hearing that the recent Paramount Airways case did. The receiver went to the judge and said, "I am faced with a difficult decision here. This is what I think I ought to do, but will you tell me whether I am right?" The judge told him that he was right and upheld the situation that had previously prevailed for employee claims up until that time. That decision does not seem to have counted in the way that it might have, because. as I understand it, no transcript was made of the proceedings as has been done in the Paramount Airways case.
It was on the basis of the Specialised Mouldings decision that the rescue operations for thousands of companies have taken place in the past few years. It is the doubt over the situation in those rescued companies—or cases where attempts were made to rescue companies—that gives me most concern tonight. I congratulate my hon. Friends on their speedy action in putting the situation right for the future in the light of the Paramount Airways decision. I know that there are cases throughout the country, such as the one mentioned recently in my local paper, where an attempt to save a firm will get a boost from the action now being taken. But for that action being taken, I believe that we would have seen the end of recovery situations, which is the principal aim of the insolvency legislation—to try to rescue companies and preserve jobs. We are right in putting the Bill through speedily tonight to remove the doubt and uncertainty that there would otherwise be.
The Paramount case may well go to the Lords on appeal, but we do not know what the outcome of that would be. Three learned judges in the Court of Appeal have decided as they have. I am not sure whether they had the benefit of a full explanation of the thinking m the House during the Report stage of the Insolvency Bill when the matter came up for consideration. If one reads

Hansard, one sees that it is quite clear that the aim was not as interpreted by the Court of Appeal in the recent case. It was to
catch the case where a receiver knowingly allows an employee to contribute his services and says nothing to him for more than 14 days about payment for those services."—[Official Report, 18 July 1985; Vol. 83, c. 544.]
The consequences of that would have been that an individual could have been employed by a receiver and never paid for being employed by him. The section was supposed to deal with that situation. No intention was ever outlined in Committee to bring about the consequences that the judges in the Paramount Airways case have held to be the law.
I believe that the Government are right in what they are seeking to do today, but I have grave doubts about what will happen if the need to clear up the situation for the intervening years from 1985–86 to now is not tackled. The seriousness of the situation must be stressed. Many companies are involved and, potentially, many claims could be made on the basis of the interpretation of the law in the Paramount Airways judgment, which was completely different from what the law used to be before the 1986 Act, from what was said to be the intention that lay behind that measure, from the interpretation that was applied in Specialised Mouldings and from what everyone thought the position to be in the interim, including the Department of Employment, which confirmed recently that it believes that the decision in Specialised Mouldings to be the right one and will continue to apply it.
I am supportive of the amendment that, technically, has been tabled at the last moment. If it had not been that I was on the train travelling down from Tynemouth, I would have signed it. We should give great consideration to the need to correct the situation back to 1985–86.
Similarly, I would have been happy to support the amendment that would bring section 37 of the 1986 Act within the proposed provision if I had been able to do so. Why should the receivers who are covered by section 37 be treated differently from other receivers? We are talking of receivers or managers who are appointed under powers that are contained in an instrument for certain contracts. They have always been treated in exactly the same way as other receivers in respect of the priority of debts. I can see no reason why that should not be the position now. I am happy to support the relevant amendment.
The aim of all insolvency legislation is to preserve jobs. The action that we are taking—I have suggested previously that we should take it—will be helpful in preserving jobs in future. Without it, rescue operations will not be mounted. It is in all our interests that they should take place wherever possible, and those involved should be given every assistance to ensure that the operations are successful and preserve jobs for the future.

Mr. John Gunnell: There is more or less unanimity in the Chamber this afternoon. Anyone who recognises the positive role that receivers have played in company rescues in the years since the Insolvency Act 1986 will welcome the Bill and appreciate that the major disruption in the work of receivers that has been caused by the recent judgment warrants an immediate response. We have before us an attempt to restore what was perceived to be the position before the Paramount Airways judgment.
Will the Minister confirm that it was the Government's intention when they introduced the 1986 Act—I think that that happened in 1984–85—to make the law as it will become when the changes that are set out in the Bill take effect? That is a key question. Our response to other issues, including those raised by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) in relation to past receiverships, will perhaps hinge on the Minister's answer. Given the speed of the Government's reaction, it seems that a serious drafting error was made in the past. There should not be such major ambiguity in company law.
The error was not so transparent that it became quickly obvious, otherwise the present practice would not have continued for so long. It cannot be certain, therefore, that the Paramount Airways judgment will survive following appeal to the House of Lords. The Government are right not to wait to find out what will happen there, assuming that the matter goes to the House of Lords, but I would think that the receivers will insist that it does.
Am I right in thinking that confusion hangs on the meaning of "adoption" as used in present legislation? Is it possible that the word is interpreted differently in English and Northern Ireland law from Scottish law? Why is there no definition of "adoption"? It reappears in the Bill, and the provision of a definition would bring an end to any confusion. Presumably, those who drafted the Bill considered the meaning to be so well known that a definition was not required. In that case, I think it might be helpful to practitioners if, in his summing up, the Minister would define very clearly what is meant by the word "adoption". Should a receiver or an administrative receiver adopt the contracts of employees if he is not necessarily aware of them at the time? For example, at the time that a contract is dealt with there may be employees on extended sick leave or maternity leave who are not on the payroll. Despite this fact, are those employees "adopted" in the sense of the Act? I think it is important for people to know what the Act means in this regard.
I raised the question about on-going receiverships in the discussion which followed the announcement by the President of the Board of Trade and I accepted his explanation that he could not introduce retrospective legislation. As hon. Members know, that news has cost jobs already. A company called Michael Mayes—I think the Minister will know of it—is trading at Thurnscoe in south Yorkshire in the Dearne valley and its chances of survival beyond the next day or two are now remote. We were given a ruling that this legislation could not be retrospective and, therefore, the receiver had to act within 14 days. However, it was not possible for him to do so, which is a tragedy because that company may have survived. There is a real shortage of jobs in the Deane valley, as the Minister will know, and it is far easier to lose jobs than find them. The loss of that company is significant and we are all sad about it.
The key to the way in which we deal with the past—the hon. Member for Tynemouth said correctly that he hoped that the Minister had some constructive thoughts about this matter—lies in my original question: did the Government always intend the law to operate as it has operated for the past seven years? If that is so, I think some account must be taken of what I would call the fallout from the

Paramount judgment. That fallout is the implications for those who have been conducting receiverships for the past seven years.
As has been said already, there have been thousands of receiverships and hundreds of administration orders. Businesses have been kept going and workers kept in their jobs as a result of reliance on the court judgment already referred to—the 1987 case of Specialised Mouldings Ltd. Reasons have been given why the present judgment supersedes the 1987 judgment. Many jobs have been saved in that time. In some companies it has not been possible to save all jobs and in other companies a receiver has traded for far more than 14 days, taking on the contracts of employees on the assumption that they would not fall on himself, but has found it impossible to maintain the company in the long run. Therefore, receivers face considerable debts if the Paramount judgment is not reversed.
In those circumstances, is it reasonable that receivers should be liable for the contracts of all those people who have lost their jobs, despite the fact that it was the receivers' intention to keep them in their jobs if possible? Neither the receiver nor the employees concerned were under any illusions about who was picking up the bill—neither expected that the bill would finally pass to the receiver.
Press speculation suggests that the debt for receivers could run into millions of pounds. It seems obvious to me—I hope that the Minister will confirm this point—that this was never intended to happen. Receivers did not believe that they were liable and employees were never led to believe that the receivers would be liable. I understand that the Government will await the result of an appeal to the House of Lords, on the pretty certain assumption that there will be one. However, I very much hope that constructive thinking is taking place at the Department of Trade and Industry in respect of how to deal with a potentially messy situation should the need arise. After all, to a certain extent, the more constructive the receiver has been in his attempt to save jobs and to rescue companies, perhaps the greater is his possible exposure. That surely cannot be right.
It is regrettable that the timing of the Paramount judgment, and this House's correction of it, catch some companies which are in the middle of a constructive receivership and companies which, like RFS Doncaster, are trading well. Will the Minister be able to say anything in the debate about possible additional intentions if the need for those should arise? The Minister might be able to say something about the Government giving the matter constructive thought and that might help to keep running businesses which are on the edge at the moment only because of what has happened through the Paramount judgment.
Ironically, the seven-year time scale of the operation of what seems now to be unclear drafting, which must have taken place in the DTI, could well threaten our most experienced receivers and mean that they end up in receivership themselves.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: As Members in all parts of the House have welcomed the Bill, I hope that the Government will accept that the comments have been made in the spirit of ensuring that an amendment to an Act made necessary by a court hearing is passed quickly and


correctly. That is why amendments have been tabled which have been signed by myself, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). Although the hon. Member for Tynemouth has had to leave the Chamber, I am grateful to him for saying that the amendments have all-party support. The amendments have been tabled in a spirit of helping the Government to ensure that we pass a Bill that meets the needs raised by the court case about which we are concerned.
There is no doubt that we need a rescue culture in this country. That means not a culture which seeks to put good money after bad when a business encounters difficulties, but a culture that recognises that with careful management, a fresh approach and some reorganisation, companies which get into difficulties can be rescued and continue, albeit in a remodelled format, to generate income and to employ people.
The core of this legislation and of the problem relates to the continuation of jobs and employment. That is the single reason why there is such cross-party support for the Bill. It has been said that if a Leyland DAF situation had arisen subsequent to the Paramount Airways Ltd. case, and before this Bill had become law, a rescue operation could not have been mounted successfully and would not have been mounted. The consequences of that to the United Kingdom would have been catastrophic.
When we recall the speeches of the President of the Board of Trade at the Dispatch Box during the debates on Leyland DAF, it is clear that he must recognise that this Bill is designed to ensure that there is time for a rescue operation to be determined on proper business grounds where the Government can stand back and allow it to happen without being placed under undue pressure to intervene when that might not be the most appropriate thing to do. I hope to persuade the Minister that if he is not prepared to accept the point he may run the risk of finding himself or his boss back at the Dispatch Box in future to deal with a potentially serious situation.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth advised me that one of the reasons why he has had to leave the Chamber is that he has to meet a Minister about Swan Hunter. The Swan Hunter receivership has been a long and ongoing problem which would have been threatened by the Paramount judgment. The Independent today reported that, according to Howard Davies of the Confederation of British Industry, the CBI is concerned that the uncertainty which the ruling has created in relation to outstanding claims and possible new claims threatens claims of up to £1 billion and could result in the bankruptcy of many medium-sized accountancy firms, with the consequential loss of a substantial number of jobs in the future. The Minister will recognise that that is only one person's opinion, but if it has any basis in substance it needs to be addressed.
Reference has been made to the fact that there may be an appeal to the House of Lords. I understand that Touche Ross has not yet decided whether to submit an appeal to the House of Lords. Even if an appeal is made, and is successful, however, it would be many months before it was finally processed and in the meantime a whole queue of similar claims may be made. That is a further reason why it is necessary to have a debate on the issues. The Minister must make the Government's position clear and the issues need to be addressed, not least because the courts are not only entitled but are required to look behind the

Bill, and presumably the Act that it seeks to amend, to see what was the objective and the intention of both the Government and the House of Lords at the time.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth made it clear that the 1987 case—the Specialised Mouldings case—was decided soon after the Insolvency Bill became law. It was not a published ruling but clear guidance which until now was accepted by everyone as the definitive practice on which normal receiverships and administrations could be modelled. There is no doubt, therefore, that the judge thought at the time that he was clarifying the clear intention of Parliament. This Bill shows that that was the clear intention of Parliament and Parliament is passing amending legislation as a direct result of the judge's ruling to make that clear. One hopes that the courts will take the ruling into account when any further appeals are presented to them.
I hope that the Minister will address the issue because the fact that the courts should take the ruling into account at present does not remove the immediate uncertainty. It has been reported, for example, that claims of up to £10 million are being lodged in the case of Olympia and York—the Canary Wharf development—and it has been suggested that some of the Maxwell companies may lodge similar claims. In a sense, I can see both sides of the situation. Having a former Maxwell company in my constituency, which is now British International Helicopters, I can understand employees wanting to take advantage of a ruling that might give them some benefit. One can hardly blame them for taking advantage of the ruling that the court has made available to them.
The trouble is that the consequence of the ruling going through, and the uncertainty that it creates, will inevitably lead to a situation where receivers will simply say that they do not intend to put themselves at risk in mounting a rescue operation, that 14 days is much too short a time for them to determine whether a company can be rescued and the liability to which they could be laying themselves open is much too great, so they will simply sell off the assets and completely liquidate the company, and the rescue will be abandoned. It would be for the greater good to ensure that that does not happen. We must get clear guidance and a clear ruling as quickly and as early as possible.
It is perhaps a little surprising that Mr. Justice Harman could have said that a practice that had been established for seven years, of issuing a letter saying that a contract will not be adopted, was only so much wind. That was a somewhat dismissive ruling by a judge on something which was clearly an accepted practice and which clearly reflected the wishes of Parliament.
There are amendments tabled in my name and that of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough which are tacitly and openly supported by the hon. Member for Tynemouth and on which we may have an opportunity to address the specific points in a little more detail. I shall therefore not detain the House any further, except to say that the Government have responded extremely quickly and it is appreciated that they needed to do so. It is understood that the consequence of that quick response is that there was little time to prepare the legislation—from a statement on Monday to publication of the Bill on Friday and debating it the following Monday. In those circumstances, I hope that the Government will approach the amendments and the comments that are being made in a constructive spirit and recognise that we are trying to ensure that the


legislation, when it goes through both the Houses of Parliament, delivers the goods, meets the intention of the House and avoids any further misunderstanding.

Mr. George Howarth: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) in welcoming the fact that legislation has been introduced in such a short time to deal with the particularly knotty problem which has been caused by the judgment.
Although I understand the reasons for the speed with which the legislation was drafted and brought to the House, it is perhaps a missed opportunity. There are areas of insolvency legislation which give cause for concern and, where opportunities exist, they are often not fully exploited. I would like to use the opportunity of the Second Reading debate to flag up some of the issues based on my experience as a Member of Parliament dealing with constituency problems.
The first issue which concerns me—it is directly connected with the Bill—is employee rights during the period of insolvency. I am aware that, for example, there are a number of unfair dismissal claims which are outstanding and are waiting to go before tribunals which have arisen out of the lack of clarity about the rights of an employee in that situation vis a vis the administrative receiver or, if it moves on, the liquidator.
As a result of the legislation, those rights—that is, to be able to go to a tribunal and to claim unfair dismissal—must be looked into further. The case law on the matter—Leyland DAF, which has been referred to, and the case of Bowden v. Bowden—adds up to an area where there is concern which needs to be clarified further. It is a pity that we have not taken the opportunity to try to clear up that concern now.
My main point is the issue of what have been referred to as phoenix situations, where either the work force, the management or some part of the structure of an existing company—it may even be some of the directors—decides to try to rescue something out of a company which is in liquidation.
Let me state my experience briefly. For a fair part of the early to mid 1980s, prior to coming to the House, I was employed first by an organisation called CDS Training in Liverpool, and secondly by the Wales Co-operative Centre, which was set up by the Wales TUC. The main purpose of my employment during that period was to try to promote and set up plans for work-owned enterprises.
We were not prescriptive about it. We were involved with worker co-operatives, although often there might be just a partnership. In some cases, there was an employee share ownership plan, otherwise known as an ESOP. During that period, I was probably involved with attempts—in many cases succesful attempts—to set up 40 to 50 firms. Those mostly arose out of industrial closures and cases where the company was already in receivership.
I have some experience, and I realise the difficulties that the people in those situations are up against. However, I want to concentrate on my more recent experiences as a Member of Parliament. The Minister is familiar with at least one of the cases which I am about to mention.
In 1988, I think—so hurried has the process been, I have not had the opportunity to check everything—there was a

company in my constituency called Greenberg. It employed about 95 people and was a long-established firm which made glass products such as patio and industrial windows. Largely through bad investment in new buildings—it was a time of high interest rates—the firm could not carry on servicing its debt and went into receivership.
I, the work force and various people advising me, including the local authority, worked for about six weeks to set up an employee share ownership plan. We raised the finance from the work force, from loans and from grants from the Department of Trade and Industry. We set up the business. It was a difficult time for the people running the business. It was badly under-capitalised, as many business start-ups find themselves, but after about a year, despite all the difficulties, it was still going, although it still had financial problems. It was taken over by another firm. It has been a success.
About 25 to 30 people now work for the firm. That is considerably fewer than in the first instance, when the company was Greenberg. Nevertheless, we managed to save something out of the company. We had difficulties confronting the receivers and making them understand what was involved and in convincing everyone else that there was a business worth saving.
The second example occurred in 1993. A company in my constituency in Kirkby which had been known as Lyons Maid and at the time was known as Clarke Foods went into receivership. Sixty seven employees worked at the factory. The administrative receiver, Robson Rhodes, dismissed the work force almost immediately. The receivers managed to sell most of the Lyons Maid operation to Nestlé. There followed a period during which we tried to convince Nestlé to keep the factory in Kirkby going. We failed in that. However, at an early stage, Nestle told us that the plant and equipment at the factory could be passed on to the work force. So we had that assurance, but that was about all.
I had Adjournment debates in the House on the matter and tabled early-day motions. I negotiated directly with the shop stewards and Nestlé and the receivers to see what we could retrieve. After many months of work, we succeeded. I pay tribute, above all to the work force, but also to Knowsley council and the Transport and General Workers Union. The Department of Trade and Industry Minister also had a direct hand in the matter. We succeeded in saving more than 30 jobs.
We were defeated in the space of about six months not by the insolvency legislation but, first, by a rather bad summer last year. The firm makes ice cream products and the grim summer did not help to sell ice cream products. However, that was not all the story. The second difficulty was Walls's virtual monopoly on freezer cabinets, which makes it difficult for any other company to break into the market. That monopoly is currently the subject of a Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry. The monopoly stopped us promoting the products of Pendletons, as it had become known. At that time, I became—on an unpaid basis, I hasten to add—the chairman of that company.
Thirdly, we were defeated by the tight margins that the supermarket chains can extract from manufacturers. Although we were able to supply notably the Co-op, we were in hot competition with people who had more resources than us. Those were the difficulties that we had once trading, but we also had difficulties in negotiating and


obtaining any useful assurance or decision about the future of the company from first the receivers, Robson Rhodes, and latterly the liquidators, Arthur Andersen.
I will tell you how we did it, Mr. Deputy Speaker; it was not necessarily the recommended course of action. Early in the dispute the work force occupied the factory. They were taken to court and a writ was served on them to vacate the premises. They did so and then set up a picket line on the gate.
The only thing that we had going for us in all those negotiations was that Arthur Andersen & Co. knew that if we did not reach some accommodation a picket would immediately have been mounted on the gate. That is not necessarily the best way to deal with matters, but if a group of workers who feel that they can take over the company are reduced to that, inevitably they will take such action. It should not be like that. Let me explain what I think should happen.
For the benefit of the people who work for the company, whether they are managers or employees, and for the benefit of the economy, there should be a duty to try to achieve employee ownership or management ownership, or a combination of ownership, which may involve direct investment from entrepreneurs, before other options are considered.
I move on to my third example. After the experience with Pendletons, otherwise known at various times as Lyons Maid and Clarke Foods, I made an attempt, with two Conservative councillors, to do a rescue operation concerning a firm called J. De Roma. It was a short-lived attempt. After a couple of weeks, it drifted into sand. The first thing that happened was that, after a few weeks, the receiver sold off the blueprint for the product—a chill cabinet in which the National Blood Transfusion Service used to store blood—to a company in Warwickshire, so that there was no product left. All that that company had to do was to employ one of the engineers who knew the manufacturing process of the cabinets, and he bought the business. I think that that was grossly negligent on the part of the receiver. The whole business, complete with the work force and their skills, could have been sold if more time had been given. It may even have been bought by the work force. Yet all the receiver did was to sell off the blueprints, fairly cheaply. The purchasing company simply recruited one engineer and had a going concern.
There is much potential for legislation instructing receivers first to attempt to get something going on the basis of the existing business, or part of that business, involving the local management and employees. Perhaps a quarter of the 2,000 companies that go into receivership could be saved by such means. At the moment, I doubt that 1 per cent. are saved by those means. For the good of the economy, and of people who work in companies who find themselves in such a position, there is a strong case for an amendment to the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and I tried to table a new clause to the Bill, which would have succeeded in putting that duty into the Bill. Having consulted the Clerks, I realise that the scope of the Bill is perhaps too narrow for that new clause to have been accepted. However, I hope that in the near future—even perhaps as a result of a conversion today—the Minister will seriously consider my arguments. I have good cause for believing that the economy as a whole—never mind

those who work in firms that go into liquidation—could benefit from reorientation of the way in which receivers function.

Mr. Bell: With the leave of the House, may I say that I am grateful for the opportunity to sum up some of the points that have been made for the Minister and to follow up on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth). My hon. Friend argued, from his own experience, the importance and significance of employee share ownership schemes and schemes of that nature, in which the worker in the place of work participates in addition to drawing a salary.
It has always been the policy of the Opposition to extend protection and participation for workers in their place of work. We thought years ago that that protection and participation would come through nationalisation, which was perceived to be the simplest route to common ownership. One takes over an industry and, once it belongs to the state, the workers obtain the protection and participation that they had sought for years. Tomorrow we shall sit down and privatise, or go through the final stages of, the privatisation of our coal mines. We shall see the consequences of 14 years of Conservative Government on nationalised industry and the fact that a new Labour Government will have to find new concepts of common ownership. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North for drawing the House's attention to that matter.
The speech by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) was useful in that he had served on the Committee that discussed the previous Insolvency Bill. I should point out that Mr. Justice Harman's judgment was considered to be obiter dicta only before the court. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Committee proceedings of the House, but those have no status in law and a judge in a court of law could not rely on them.
Great play has been made of the question of an appeal to the House of Lords against a Court of Appeal judgment. I noticed that the Minister was careful to say "may" appeal because the Court of Appeal has refused leave of appeal to the House of Lords and it is a question whether the matter can be included in another motion elsewhere. It is not entirely clear that an appeal to the House of Lords is possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) referred to RSF Doncaster, which was helpful. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred to Leyland DAF. The case of Swan Hunter is dear to my heart; so I see the significance in pushing the Bill through quickly tonight. We have discussed the consequences of it not being retrospective. In the Paramount case alone, some £600,000 may fall on the receivers' shoulders if the law or its interpretation is not changed tonight. Other cases may be lined up, depending on the statute of limitations, whether it tolls and whether the facts are different in those cases. Nevertheless, because there will be a great deal of uncertainty throughout the profession of insolvency practitioners, we shall return to that matter in Committee.
Some of the points that have been made show that we need a proper overhaul of the Insolvency Act 1986 and this may be a first shot at that. Although we wish the Bill well, we shall not leave the subject of insolvency to lie on the table, as it has done for so long. Obviously, the Minister is



aware of his Department's consultation paper and the fact that the consultation process comes to an end on 31 March. At that time, we shall seek some rapid conclusions from his Department.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: It would have been easy for Opposition Members to turn this into a general debate on the state of the economy as reflected in the problems of insolvent companies. I congratulate them on resisting the temptation to trivialise the issue so that we can concentrate on the serious points in the Bill.
Many points have been raised by the hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) and for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who is, at this moment, meeting people who have come to lobby Parliament about Swan Hunter, which is important to his constituency. Most of the points have concentrated on retrospection, with which we shall deal shortly in Committee. I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I deal with those points in that context rather than repeat myself.
Various points were made about phoenix companies. I appreciate the public concern about the phoenix problem but we must act in a way that reflects due process. It is far from being the case that all collapses involve a degree of moral turpitude on the part of company directors. That matter was dealt with in detail during the passage of what became the Insolvency Bill 1986, when the approach, which is often enjoined upon me, of seeking to prevent company directors from going back into business after their companies have collapsed was decisively rejected by the House. Such an approach would be a slur on the vast majority of company directors whose companies fail not for reasons of design on their part. Were we to prevent company directors from continuing in business because they had been involved in a company that had unfortunately failed through no fault of theirs, it would be not only a significant injustice towards those individuals but no good for the economy in general.
Nevertheless, some draconian powers are available to us under current company and insolvency legislation, which enables us to fasten on those who are guilty of misfeasance. Naturally, we must prove to the satisfaction of a court that they have acted in a way of which the law disapproves. Those matters are often difficult to prove and suspicions remain, which gives rise to the public's feeling of resentment that certain individuals can take advantage of what are regarded as loopholes in the law. I do not regard them as loopholes, although I hope that we shall always catch wrongdoers and punish them for their acts. We all know that, in the nature of things, it is impossible to do that in every case, hard as we try. We must ensure that the business environment precludes such activities. Where they take place none the less, we must ensure that we have the means of bringing them to book if possible. We must beware of throwing the baby out with the bath water. To get at one problem, we may create many others.
The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South asked about the meaning of adoption. I shall put my view on record so that he can read it in due course. If he then still has questions, I shall be pleased to try to deal with them.
Adoption of a contract means that a person procures the performance of a contract. In effect, therefore, the person refrains from repudiating it. In such circumstances, the person can be said to adopt the contract. A contract may be adopted by words—"express" adoption—or by conduct—"implied" adoption. The conduct constituting the adoption may be payment of wages, for example. It is impossible to be exhaustive and I do not wish to go into the full ramifications of the meaning of a term that might fall to be decided by a court in an individual case. I hope that my statement will help the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough was rather hard on me and my Department in respect of the length of time that we have taken to deal with this difficulty, which became acute only with the Court of Appeal's decision a short time ago. It is not true to say that the situation was identified back in 1987. It was addressed by the High Court in February 1987 in the Specialised Mouldings case. The result of the court's consideration seemed to provide a practical solution, if there was a problem at all. The problem with which we are dealing today is that the Court of Appeal took a different view. Hence, we are seeing a development of the law, which is why we are dealing with the problems in the Bill today.
I hope that I have dealt with the points that will not arise again in Committee. I am grateful to hon. Members of all parties for facilitating the passage of the Bill. I almost forgot the point made by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North. The one person whom he did not congratulate on the insolvencies in his constituency was himself. I know how hard he and the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), who is also present, have worked in the interests of their constituents, especially in the Pendletons case in which I was invited to participate. I am sorry that, in the event, it was not possible to save the jobs that they worked so hard to save.
The argument about special treatment for employee share ownership schemes is not wholly open and shut. Although it is not relevant for the purposes of this Bill, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough asked me to give serious consideration to the argument. He knows that I shall always consider seriously any points that are put forward in good faith and schemes that might save companies that would otherwise fail. Particularly as the Minister with responsibility for the north-west and as the representative of a constituency not far from that of the hon. Gentleman, I am as interested as he is in saving jobs in the region and in facilitating improvement of the local economy. Thus, I shall be very happy to consider any points that the hon. Gentleman cares to raise in another context. As he accepted, it would not be appropriate, in the context of the Bill, to go too far down that avenue.
I am grateful to hon. Members on all sides for facilitating the speedy passage of the Bill and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Conway.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

Clause 1

ADMINISTRATORS: PRIORITY OF LIABILITIES UNDER ADOPTED CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Bell: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 26, leave our '15th March 1994' and insert '31st December 1986'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 16, leave out '15th March 1994' and insert '31st December 1986'.
No. 3, in clause 3, page 4, line 11, leave out '15th March 1994' and insert '31st December 1986'.
No. 4, in schedule 1, page 6, line 31, leave out '15th March 1994 and insert '31st December 1986'.

Mr. Bell: These are probing amendments. We wish to elicit from the Minister a further and more detailed response based upon the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade on 14 March, which set out his own concern, and the concerns set out today by the Minister. We have had some clarification of the Minister's thinking. My understanding of what he told the House is that there is no wish on the part of the Executive to overturn the decision of the Law Lords—a matter to which I have referred briefly. At present, there is no provision to allow an appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal to be sent to the Law Lords.
It emerged from a short exchange with the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) during the Select Committee's transactions that there was some concern among Committee members as to the wording—which ended up being included in the Bill—of contracts of employment. The Minister—quite rightly, in his view—took me to task slightly on the question of whether the Government had known about this interpretation difficulty. In the analysis contained in "Halsbury's Laws of England" the interpretive note contains this clear statement:
There is room for some legislative revision here.
The point is that it was clear to practitioners and to lawyers that there was something askance in that interpretation. The hon. Member for Tynemouth, with his knowledge of the specific subject, seemed to confirm that if there were a weakness that could lead to difficulties in a court of law, that fact would be sufficient to justify making the clause retrospective to 31 December 1986. We have shown the mischief of the law. It is not a question of interpretation of judgments from either the High Court or the Court of Appeal, which, in my view, delivered sound judgments on the facts before them. The misfortune arises in the terms of the law.
That was pointed out to the Government when they were looking at the decision in the case of Nicoll v. Cutts, concerning payment of workers by the administrative receiver. Section 44(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 was then proposed. The petitioners tried to persuade the Government not to go along that line as it was clearly a case of taking a cannon to shoot a mouse. It was not necessary to modify the entire law of the land on the basis of one judgment.
As to Mr. Justice Harman's interpretive decision concerning the meaning of the law, administrative

receivers took the matter to him. For an analysis under section 35 of the Insolvency Act 1986, they went to court and asked for clarification. It is clear that at that time the law required clarification. It is clear that the intention of the legislation had not been realised. It was argued that, whatever may or may not have been the intention of the legislator, the wording in the Insolvency Act 1986 constituted no change in the existing law. Therefore, it was clear to the practitioners that the 1986 Act was supposed simply to embody what had already come about in the practice of the profession. Since the passage of the 1986 Act, we have seen the receivers' letter—approved by Mr. Justice Harman—to the work force simply washing their hands of the employment contract and not adopting it.
In an entirely non-partisan spirit, we say that the law contained something that needed to be rectified. We are simply trying to amend the law in the light of decisions by the High Court and of the Court of Appeal. Our view is that the defect lies at the heart of the 1986 Act and that there should therefore be retrospection. The power that makes the House of Commons sovereign is its ability to pass retrospective legislation. It would certainly be wrong to pass retrospective legislation of a political nature, but this is not a political matter. That being the case, I submit that the Government should accept the amendment.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I was moved to table the amendment in conjunction with the hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) partly by something that I read in The Independent this morning and a consequential telephone call I made to the Confederation of British Industry. I was also prompted by a question that the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) put to the President of the Board of Trade following the right hon. Gentleman's statement last Monday. The relevant remarks may be found in column 618 of Hansard. The President referred to the clear problem that the Paramount Airways decision raised in relation to all the cases of the past seven years. The amendment would eliminate that problem by making it clear from the outset that the practice established in the Specialised Mouldings case was the intention of the law and that that was the practice that would be the test of any disputes that might subsequently arise.
As the situation stands at the moment, there is clear concern. Howard Davies of the Confederation of British Industry says that, in his view, accountancy firms could face claims of up to £1 billion, even allowing for the Bill going through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament within the next two days. That is a substantial figure for claims for which, as things stand, the legislation does not appear to provide a solution. It is not surprising that Mr. Davies says that amendments such as the one that we are proposing would deal with the problem in a fairly straightforward way.
I should like to make it clear that we are all gravely concerned about retrospective legislation. Other members of my party and I have often railed against Governments who have attempted such legislation. It is not something to be done lightly. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough said that this was a probing amendment, but I hope that the Minister realises that an important point is at issue here, and one that needs dealing with.
The difference between the Bill and contentious retrospective legislation is that this does not present us with serious practical problems. If the amendment were


incorporated, that would be as much as to say that the practice adopted by the professionals as a result of the Specialised Mouldings ruling has in effect been the state of the law since that case—in which case, all claims that might arise as a result of the Paramount Airways decision would fall, and no one would waste time making them.
5 pm
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, who knows more about these matters than I do, has already said that the avenue of going to the House of Lords may not be open in this case, although it is being referred to as a possibility. Even if it is opened up, it may not solve the problem. It will leave great uncertainty lingering over the profession for many months to come.
The problem cannot be shrugged off. Although the Minister has been clearly told that we do not intend to push the amendment, I hope that he will recognise that the issue is a live one. I am reliably advised that it will also be raised in another place, probably by Lord Reay. Everyone dealing with the matter is looking for a clear statement.
One of the problems appears to be that the Paramount Airways ruling, relating as it did to what seemed an acceptable practice, has been deemed a sham: it is being ignored. Unless an administrator or receiver dismisses the work force and then re-employs them on new contracts within 14 days, he can be held liable for all previous contractual commitments, and 14 days is often far too short a time to make such a decision.
If the Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Paramount Airways is correct, that implies that there was something wrong with the law in the first place. An amendment such as this would effectively deal with that problem by admitting that the law was badly drafted, but that the intention and practice have been clear until the latest ruling. We should now be able to put that to rest. The House has now made it abundantly clear how it wants such matters to be conducted in future and how they should have been conducted in the past. Thereupon £1 billion in claims, and all the uncertainty and threats of liquidation that go with them, can be put to one side.
I do not envy the Minister his task. I know that any statement that he may make in response to a debate such as this cannot of itself resolve the issue. Nevertheless, I hope that he will recognise the fact that people want clear guidance.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: It is true that the Court of Appeal, in the case of Paramount Airways, has refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords, but it is always possible for the House of Lords, of its own motion, to allow an appeal. I have no idea whether there will be an appeal in, this case; it therefore remains possible that the House of Lords will take a view different from the Court of Appeal's. It would be wrong to speculate on the outcome, and I do not propose to do so.
I understand that these are serious issues, and I assure Opposition Members who have spoken that I appreciate their arguments. I have not yet had the chance to read the article in The Independent to which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred, as I have been working all day and have had little chance to catch up with the news—but I shall certainly read it and give more thought to the arguments in it.
I have always been a strident critic of retrospective legislation. On more than one occasion, in fact, I have made common cause with the Liberal party in this respect, not least in Finance Bill Committees, where the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) may even have supported me once in opposing retrospective tax legislation—before I joined the Government, of course.
This argument has always interested me. As hon. Members have said, the point came up during questions following the statement by my right hon. Friend the President last Monday. The hon. Member for Gordon referred to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste). There is a distinction that can be drawn between retrospective legislation and the impact of decisions in the courts. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet asked my right hon. Friend whether he agreed that one of the problems with judge-made law was that it is retrospective. Now, constitutional purists will say that judge-made law is not retrospective because judges are only declaring a position as it has always been, even though the question has not been tested before.
In a sense, that is what we are dealing with today. It is likely that, following the Specialised Mouldings case of seven years ago, matters remained open to argument. The fact is that that case was on application for directions from the courts, so it was not speculating on the legal position in a way that could give rise to a precedent on which practitioners could then rely. Consequently, if there has been any doubt in the minds of practitioners, it has been because the law has not been authoritatively declared before. That in turn is qualitatively different from changing the law to give it an effect different from the one it has always been held to have.
In this legislation we are asked—I invite the House—to change the law for the future from that which the judges have now declared it to be, subject to an appeal to the House of Lords. My right hon. Friend clearly said, in answer to a number of interrogators last Monday, that we were not seeking to change the law retrospectively.
To the best of my recollection, when the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) spoke on Monday, he implied that he would oppose the retrospective application of this Bill, because he raised the case of the Paramount workers themselves. Although he did not explicitly state why he had done so, I took his meaning to be that he did not want us to change the law retrospectively in such a way as to disadvantage those who might otherwise have claims. I may have misunderstood him; perhaps this is another ambiguity which has been introduced into our proceedings and which needs to be resolved. Perhaps the hon. Member for Middlesbrough can resolve it.
We must recognise the fact that if we change the law with retrospective effect, we will change the rights and obligations of certain individuals. Some will benefit, others will be disadvantaged. It is a difficult balance to strike. My own prejudice is against retrospection in legislation on constitutional grounds, which, I am sure, will appeal to the hon. Member for Gordon.
In general, I do not think it would be right retrospectively to affect entitlements acquired before 15 March, the day after the President's statement last week, so each case will have to be considered by receivers on the facts. That is not to say that I do not recognise the genuine fears expressed by Opposition Members in respect of claims that might arise for closures during the period 1986 to 1994. It is obvious that there must be some risk of


claims, although it is difficult to say how many, and for how much. But we must recognise that many businesses were saved, with the result that employees continued with re-emerging businesses. It is unlikely that claims will arise from those cases, although there are some spectacular claims in this morning's newspapers, as the hon. Member for Gordon said. Those cases will have to be dealt with on the facts, and it would be wrong of me to speculate about them.
One always has to walk a tightrope in such cases. One appreciates that those who might be disadvantaged as a result of changing the law with retrospective effect will be just as loud in their protestations as those inviting, us to make the retrospective changes. One cannot decide what is the right thing to do simply by counting how much money is involved on each side and favouring those who have the greater claim. No one would accept that that would be a sensible way to proceed. All I can do this afternoon is to seek refuge in the forceful argument that every time we introduce retrospective legislation, and therefore disturb the relationship that the courts have declared exists between parties, we make it easier the next time that we are invited or tempted to introduce it. But we should do it sparingly.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) referred to the Burmah Oil case. I well remember it from my constitutional law lectures many years ago. It resulted in the War Damage Act 1965. To its shame, the Conservative party, which was then in opposition, did not vote against or oppose the Act, although some hon. Members—among whom I would have been counted had I been here in those days—voted against the Bill, which was a pernicious measure. It disturbed the rights of individuals as declared, not by the Court of Appeal, but by the House of Lords, so there was no prospect of appeal. I imagine that the Act was passed principally at the behest of the Treasury, which otherwise would have had substantial claims laid at its door.
Although I am a great believer in constraining public expenditure, such constraint is not tolerable if it causes injustice to individuals, particularly if that injustice arises in circumstances that could not be foreseen.
The Burmah Oil case is not an inspiring example to justify retrospective legislation. I recognise that there is an argument for retrospection. I do not claim that there is is an open-and-shut or a black-and-white case. Ultimately, we should decide on the basis of the balance of advantage. So far, I am not persuaded that the arguments are overwhelming. It is always easy, on the basis of speculative articles in newspapers, to conjure demons that are not there or to exaggerate their importance.
Inevitably, as no one can be sure what the position is, we are dealing with speculative matters. If it appears that there is a serious problem, in this case or any other, the Government—being flexible and open to reasoned argument, as I am in particular—are prepared to consider it. I am not yet persuaded that there is a case to answer, but I shall always listen to those who feel that I am wrong.
As the hon. Member for Gordon said, the matter may be discussed again in another place. I have not yet been translated to that place, so I shall not participate in that debate. I am grateful for the presence of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, although it is intimidating to have noticed him only at this stage. I am sure that all hon. Members present would like to congratulate him on the celebration of his birthday today.
I hope that I have said enough to convince hon. Members that it would not be right at this moment to apply the Bill's provision retrospectively because we could not be certain who might benefit and who might be disadvantaged. Unless we could decide that with some precision, it would not be correct for us to apply the legislation retrospectively.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving us a greater in-depth insight into the thinking of the Ministry than we had during the Second Reading debate. That is understandable because he knew that the Bill would be going into Committee.
I am grateful to him for reminding me of the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 14 March, in column 616 of Hansard. He was putting a specific question to the President of the Board of Trade on the legal rights of Paramount Airways employees, who were the subject of the Court of Appeal decision. He sought an assurance that others who had benefited from receivership would not see those benefits diminish. That clarifies my hon. Friend's position. We tabled a probing amendment to elicit a response from the Minister, which we have had.
In his comments on Burmah Oil, the Minister showed his free-market thinking. As he and I know, since we were probably studying at the same time, in 1964 the Government had a majority of four. Notwithstanding that majority, the House reversed the Law Lords decision on Burmah Oil. That decision shows that the House felt that a clear public interest was involved, but things have moved on since then.
The Minister told us—this is my interpretation—that the Court of Appeal decision is not a retrospective judgment, but one that is effective from the time that it was made. It is not retrospective or retroactive. Therefore, the size of claims that are being touted—I say that in the friendliest sense—in today's newspapers are not likely to occur. In any event, the decision in each case will depend on the facts of that case and on the statute of limitations' tolling. Dean Inge said many years ago:
I have had a great many problems, most of which never happened".
With that in mind, I shall not move amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

ADMINISTRATORS: PRIORITY OF LIABILITIES UNDER ADOPTED CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Gunnell: I have a question on clause 1(6), which inserts new subsections in section 19 of the 1986 Act. Subsection 7(b) defines a qualifying liability as
in respect of services rendered wholly or partly after the adoption of the contract.
Why are the words "or partly" included? What would be the effect of that section if those words were not present? New subsection (8) relates to qualifying liability. Clause 2 inserts subsection (2B) into section 44 of the Act and clause 3 amends section 57 of the Act by inserting a new subsection (2B). There seem to be differences in the wording used in lines 24 and 35 and in the new subsection


(2B). Does the Minister have any explanation for the differences, given that all the clauses are designed to do the same thing?

Mr. Neil Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman lost me at the end of his remarks. Could he repeat his final point?

Mr. Gunnell: Compare page 2, line 8 of the Bill with line 30 in clause 2(2). The wording is different. Technical practitioners want to know whether there is any significance in the difference in wording in respect of the qualifying liability and its extent. There is a difference, which technicians do not quite understand. I thought that the Minister might be able to put them right.

Mr. Hamilton: I think that it is not only the technicians who do not understand. I am afraid that I am not able, off the top of my head, to answer the hon. Gentleman's latter point, although there does not appear to be a discrepancy in the meaning of the words in clause 1(8),
so much of any qualifying liability
and the words in clause 2 (2),
to the extent of any qualifying liability".
I shall certainly take advice from my lawyers and I will write to the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the matter is put beyond doubt.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about subsection (6)(b), and the words
in respect of services rendered wholly or partly after the adoption of the contract.
I do not think that there is any ambiguity or difficulty in that wording. The new section 19(7) of the amended Act defines a qualifying liability as
a liability to pay … wages or salary",
or pension contribution, in respect of services rendered by the employee, whether
wholly or partly after the adoption of the contract.
Accordingly, any liabilities arising under a contract of employment that do not fall within that description will rank as unsecured claims against the company. The provision is included simply for purposes of completeness: part performance of a contract in itself gives rise to a liability, and the drafting of the legislation must reflect that.
Employees may well be employed for only part of a period of receivership, rather than the whole period. The wording would aptly cover those circumstances as well.
I hope that I have been able to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions. If not—ah, I have been handed a piece of paper: the seventh cavalry has arrived. I am told that there is no difference in substance between the new section 19(8) and the new section 44(2B), although they are cast in slightly different terms for technical reasons. I shall ask what those technical reasons are, and whether there is any justification for them; and I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman is informed of the result of my inquiries.

Mr. Gunnell: I thank the Minister. I shall ensure that the technicians read his answer; if they are not satisfied, I shall write to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

LIABILITY OF CONTRACTS

`(1) Section 37 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (personal liability of receiver or manager appointed under powers contained in an instrument for certain contracts) shall be amended as provided by sub-sections (2) and (3) below.

(2) In sub-section (1)(a) (liability for contracts of employment adopted by him in performance of his functions) after "provides) and" there shall be inserted ", to the extent of any qualifying liability,".

(3) After sub-section (2) there shall be inserted—

"(2A) for the purposes of sub-section (1)(a), a liability under a contract of employment is a qualifying liability if—

(a) it is a liability to pay a sum by way of wages or salary or contribution to an occupational pension scheme,
(b) it is incurred while the receiver or manager is in office, and
(c) it is in respect of services rendered wholly or partly after the adoption of the contract.

(2B) Where a sum is payable in respect of a liability which is a qualifying liability for the purposes of sub-section (1)(a) is payable in respect of services rendered partly before and partly after the adoption of the contract, liability under sub-section (1)(a) shall only extend to so much of the sum as is payable in respect of services rendered after the adoption of the contract.

(2C) For the purposes of sub-section (2A) and (2B)—

(a) Wages or salary payable in respect of the period of holiday or absence from work through sickness or other good cause are deemed to be wages or (as the case may be) salary in respect of services rendered in that period, and
(b) A sum payable in lieu of holidays is deemed to be wages (or as the case may be) salary in respect of services rendered in the period by reference to which the holiday entitlement arose.

(2D) In sub-section (2C)(a), the reference to wages or salary payable in respect of a period of holiday includes any sums which, if they had been paid, would have been treated for the purposes of the enactments relating to social security as earnings in respect of that period.".

(4) This section shall have effect in relation to contracts of employment adopted on or after the 15th March 1994.'—[Mr. Malcolm Bruce.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is couched in exactly the terms of the Bill and has a simple but important purpose—to extend the terms of the Bill to receiverships and the terms of the Law of Property Act 1925. I would not describe this as a probing amendment and I hope that the Minister will accept it, or at least accept that it deals with an omission which can and should be readily dealt with.
As I understand it, the Government's current thinking is that property receiverships of this kind do not require the legislation. However, I have been told in the past few days that they do require it, and that if they are excluded the problems applying to general receiverships and administrations will also apply to them. That will leave not just a gap, but a gap to which attention has been specifically drawn.
We are talking of receiverships in which the issue in question is a single piece of property. I suppose that it might be argued that a single piece of property is not a business, but it does not take much reflection for hon. Members to recognise that if that single piece of property is a hotel, a block of flats or an office block, its subsequent valuation in any sale will depend on its continuing to function as such a building. That continued function will require the retention of staff. Selling a hotel that is closed,


vacant and empty of staff will clearly lower its valuation; the same applies to an office block which requires servicing and management, a block of flats, or similar properties.
This morning, I trawled around a number of receiverships dealing in property. I was told that all respondents claimed to have at least two cases currently on their books which would fall foul of the law if the new clause was not accepted. The Paramount ruling would apply and the net effect would be that what is currently operated as a receivership to rescue not just a building, but a building to which a business is attached, could fail. That would lead to an accelerated liquidation, and the loss of jobs, assets and a continuing business.
On Second Reading, I told the Minister that I appreciated the speed with which the Government had acted and we accept that, as a consequence, it has not been possible to consult as widely as might otherwise have been possible. I am assured that the new clause is sought by specialist practitioners—including the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which is extremely concerned about the omission of such a measure, which it assumed was simply a technical oversight caused by the pressure to get the Bill through.
The new clause has been carefully drafted to accord with the Bill's current form, and I hope that it is therefore technically acceptable. Its acceptance would resolve the current problem. If the Minister does not wish to accept it, however, I hope that he will not slam the door, but will recognise the genuine lacuna which exists and could widen. I am led to believe that the matter will be raised in another place; I hope that that is so.
I ask the Minister to recognise that the new clause has been tabled in good faith—not by me as an expert, but on behalf of people who know more about the matter, and who have explained clearly to me that the consequences of its omission could be serious for a significant number of active current receiverships. If the Minister cannot accept the new clause, I hope that he will at least indicate his willingness to examine it again. Perhaps the Government will consider retabling it in their own terms.
I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer. This is a simple, direct matter: the Bill contains an omission that can be readily remedied and the new clause will achieve that.

Mr. Bell: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). The Minister likes flexibility. Here we are dealing with property—hotels, for instance—lumps of bricks and mortar, but nevertheless important. Work forces may be involved, or may be required to be involved; they may find themselves in the same situation as others, with contracts of employment that may or may not be adopted.
I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) recognised, the Bill was introduced quickly to remove any impediment to the rescue of businesses by administrative receivers and administrators. There is a difference between the capacities of such people and those of receivers or managers, to whom section 37 of the 1986 Act applies.
An administrative receiver is a receiver or manager of the whole, or substantially the whole, of a company's

property, appointed by the holder of a charge which, as created, was a floating charge. A receiver or manager includes receiverships over part of the assets: that can include those appointed under the Law of Property Act 1925, to which the hon. Member for Gordon referred. But it is not simply a question of Law of Property Act receiverships; it goes much wider. Law of Property Act receiverships can involve the giving of a power to manage in the mortgage document, but will not necessarily control all the assets of a company. That situation is substantially different from that which is the subject of the Bill.
The Committee ought to be aware of a number of important distinctions. In particular, a receiver or manager does not have to be a licensed insolvency practitioner or to have any qualifications, so receivers and managers do not have the same powers and duties as administrative receivers. Extending the wide range of circumstances in which receivers or managers can be appointed needs careful consideration. Before opening a Pandora's box, we ought to be fully aware of the consequences of such a significant change.
5.30 pm
I shall be happy to consider the arguments for the provision that the hon. Member for Gordon advocates, but that would be better done in a wider review of the law relating to company rescues. The Bill is not the appropriate place to consider the wider change that the hon. Gentleman proposes. His proposal goes far beyond the Bill's narrow purpose. It would be better to consider the arguments for such a change in a more reflective mood than the time available today makes possible. If the hon. Members for Gordon and for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), and any other hon. Member who feels that such a change would improve the Bill, would like to pursue the matter with me, I shall be happy to discuss the issues. However, in the context of the Bill, I am not disposed to accept a change of which the ramifications may be far greater than hon. Members suspect.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I thank the Minister for his constructive reply. When legislation of a specialised nature is rushed through the House, hon. Members are somewhat dependent on outside advice. I appreciate the Minister's concern that the new clause could have wider ramifications, but his reply indicated that he acknowledges the genuine worry among surveyors that they have in effect been left exposed by the Bill. The Minister's perhaps justifiable non-acceptance of the new clause may create for surveyors a problem that requires urgent if not immediate attention.
I did not expect the Minister to accept the new clause. In fact, it was indicated that the Government would resist it. I am glad, however, that the Minister will consider the matter further. We are dealing with legislation that is moving fast and counter arguments may be presented to the Government, if not to the Minister, within 24 hours. It may be possible to consider the point further in another place. I am not qualified to take issue with the Minister's explanation—he probably hoped that I would say that—but I am concerned that the exclusion from this legislation of a significant group of people could leave them severely exposed.
I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that he will consider the matter further, if not in the context of the Bill


then as part of a wider review. I hope that the Government will keep an open mind so long as the Bill is on the Table in either House. To that extent, I will not press the matter.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Mr. Bell: It is of the utmost importance that there be certainty in the law in relation to employers, employees, receivers and administrative receivers. In the public interest, we co-operated fully with the Government, with a view to rectifying what may have been a doubtful and uncertain position. I am grateful to the Minister for his co-operation and for the full explanations of matters raised on Second Reading and in Committee. We have no reason to detain the House further.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is required to ensure that the jurisdiction of British Transport police constables appointed under section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 is not inadvertently reduced in England and Wales from 1 April by virtue of the Railways Act 1993.
I am grateful to a number of individuals and organisations—among them, Lord Harris of Greenwich, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), the chief constable of the British Transport police and the British Transport Police Federation—for drawing the issue to the Government's attention. I am also grateful to the police committee for providing helpful advice in recent weeks, and to the Opposition for facilitating thus far the passage of the Bill, which I hope will reach the statute book as quickly as possible.
The Government are committed to the British Transport police. We fully acknowledge their vital work in policing the rail network and ensuring the safety of the travelling public. The House will be particularly aware of the BTP's major role in anti-terrorist activities.
In the restructured railway regime, the BTP will continue, as a unified public force, to police Britain's rail network, performing the same range of duties as now—including providing services to the London underground and the docklands light railway. The core police services that the BTP provides will be laid down by the police committee. Those are the services undertaken by BTP so as to maintain law and order. They include services relating to safety; anti-terrorism; the prevention and detection of crime; keeping the peace; bringing offenders to justice; and rendering support to victims of crime. Railtrack and all licensed train, station and light maintenance depot operators will be obliged by the terms of their licences to use and to pay for core police services provided by the BTP.
The Bill is an indication of our commitment. We are concerned that there should be no reduction in British Transport police jurisdiction. The BTP's current powers in policing the railway should not be circumscribed, preventing it from continuing to be an effective public police force.
The Government are introducing the Bill because we recognise that the effect of the Railways Act 1993 on statutory provisions establishing the jurisdiction of BTP constables is inadvertently to reduce that jurisdiction from 1 April. Under section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 and the Railways Act 1993—in so far as they apply to England and Wales—the BTP will have jurisdiction in, on and in the vicinity of the premises of British Rail, Railtrack and certain other railway operators, but will have jurisdiction to act elsewhere only in matters connected with or affecting the board and not in matters connected with or affecting Railtrack and other operators.
The defect does not arise in Scotland, which, since 1980, has had different provisions that are apposite to Scotland, where there is a different legal system. The Bill remedies the defect for England and Wales. It will enable


the British Transport police to act elsewhere than in the vicinity of railway premises in matters connected with or affecting Railtrack and other operators that are police service users to the full extent of the agreements made between them and the board. In addition, it enables the British Transport police to act in, on and in the vicinity of premises of any subsidiary of the board, and elsewhere in matters connected with or affecting any of the subsidiaries.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Just for clarity and perhaps to truncate this part of the discussion, will the Minister spell out the principal rail operators that will not be under a statutory requirement to be licensed users of British Transport police services?

Mr. Freeman: The principal and indeed only example that I can give—if there are others, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman—will be the preserved railways. I refer to those running steam trains wholly outwith the provision of a public service to passengers—in other words, running only on their own tracks and run by their own members for the benefit of those members. If a preserved railway wishes to offer a public service, it must be licensed. I hope that that example gives the hon. Gentleman the flavour.

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful for the flavour, but now let us get to the taste. By way of clarification, will the Minister assure me that there will be a statutory obligation on, for example, the Heathrow Express and European passenger services to enter into agreements and licensing that will involve the use of the British Transport police?

Mr. Freeman: The Heathrow Express will require a licence to run—I am fairly certain, but will check during the course of the debate—on existing track between Paddington and the point where there is a departure from the main railway lines. The hon. Gentleman asked about European services. I can give the hon. Gentleman the categorical assurance that the writ of the British Transport police will run for services from Waterloo and, in due course, other railway stations, down to the channel tunnel. There is no question of any ambiguity about the powers of the British Transport police in that regard.
The Bill thus ensures that the existing jurisdiction of the British Transport police will extend to all police services users—to all those who are party to a transport police services agreement with the British Railways Board. I have already made it clear that all licence holders in the restructured railway will be required by their licences at all times to be a party to an agreement to use and pay for the services of the British Transport police. The general authority to the regulator will ensure that the regulator may not issue a licence without such a condition. A licence will provide that the police services agreement ' must be approved by the Secretary of State, and the services to be provided under the agreement are those specified as "core police services" by the police committee.
I can assure the House that a crucial factor in the Secretary of State's decision to approve an agreement for the provision of police services will be to ensure consistency in agreements. In particular, he will seek to ensure that provisions in the agreement that might affect the jurisdiction of constables are consistent so that British Transport police constables can have a clear and unambiguous understanding of their jurisdiction.
Moreover, the police committee will ensure that the core police services are such as to ensure law and order on the railway.
The employer of the British Transport police, which is and will continue to be the British Railways Board until there is a change in the law, will be fully responsible for funding the British Transport police and will be responsible for collecting charges from operators. Operators will therefore pay policing charges to the employer of the British Transport police, not to the BTP itself. I can assure the House that there is no question that any failure of an operator to pay the employer would affect the ability of the British Transport police to police the railway.
Hon. Members will realise that, despite the simplicity of what the Bill sets out to achieve, it is a detailed measure that reflects the complicated and much-amended status of the legislation.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, including his remark that the Bill is a complicated and detailed measure. Will he tell us why, if that is the case, it is necessary and appropriate for the Government to get the measure through the House in 24 hours—later today? Why could not the proceedings at least have been split up to allow the Committee stage to be taken another day? I recognise the urgency of the matter, but it is a sham and a disgrace to Parliament that the Bill is being railroaded through in one afternoon. That is totally unacceptable.

Mr. Freeman: The handling of parliamentary business is not a matter for me. The only comment that I would make is that there is universal agreement that we should seek to amend the law by the end of the month. The timetabling of the Bill and its various stages must be a matter for the business managers and representatives of the various parties involved.
Clause 1, in its application to England and Wales, amends section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 with respect to the jurisdiction of the British Transport police. It extends their jurisdiction to enable them to act elsewhere than in, on and in the vicinity of premises of the board or a police services user in matters connected with or affecting a police services user. In addition, it enables them to act in, on and in the vicinity of premises of any subsidiary—whether wholly owned or not—of the board, and in matters connected with or affecting such subsidiaries.
Clause 2 and the schedule specify the citation and commencement of the Act, the enactments that it repeals and its extent. It is intended that, when passed, the Bill will come into force on 1 April 1994 to ensure that the jurisdiction is maintained when Railtrack takes over from British Rail the ownership and management of the network.
I have written on the above lines today to the police committee. Following a meeting with it this morning, Sir Bob Reid has replied in the following terms on its behalf:
Thank you for your letter of 21 March to David Rayner"—
the chairman of the police committee—
about the Transport Police 'Jurisdiction' Bill, which is most helpful and welcomed by the Police Committee.
We shall now be putting in place work, in the light of your letter, to define model agreements for police services which are acceptable to the Chief Constable and the Police Committee. Any


substantial modification which may arise to such model agreements will need to be evaluated and endorsed by the Police Committee as they arise.
The Bill restores the powers of jurisdiction of the BIT inadvertently affected by the Railways Act 1993. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I welcome the Bill; as we suggested it to the Government, it would be rather churlish of me not to welcome it. As the Minister has explained, as a result of slovenly errors on the part of the Government, the jurisdiction of the British Transport police was reduced by the Railways Act 1993. Apparently, the Government have become so committed to deregulation that they now even do it by accident.
Nothing could better illustrate the importance that the Government attach to the need to tackle crime than their error in reducing the jurisdiction of the British Transport police and their apparent unwillingness subsequently to do anything urgently to put the matter right. There was a possibility therefore that, from 1 April, the staff of the British Transport police would not be able to investigate crimes or arrest people elsewhere than on, or immediately adjacent to, the property of Railtrack or any privatised railway company. That was clearly bad from the point of view of combating crime, and particularly bad from the point of view of continuing the fight against terrorism.
British Transport police is currently responsible for policing the whole railway system. It is vital that it stays that way, particularly because of terrorist threats. We either have a fully comprehensive system—as we have now—or it is broken up, loses its effectiveness and makes passengers and staff vulnerable. Last year, British Transport police received more than 1,130 bomb threats on British Rail and London Underground. It vetted them carefully and advised the closure of stations on just 33 occasions. Of those 33, only nine turned out to be bombs; all were dealt with successfully. No one was killed and no one was injured. There were no bombs involved in the 1,100 instances where the BTP exercised their judgment and advised that stations did not need to be closed. I am sure that all would agree that that was a remarkable achievement—a credit to the BTP, to the effectiveness of their communications and assessment system and to the judgment exercised daily by their senior officers. That judgment is based on confidence that they run a watertight system and that there are no gaps in their information. That is a major reason why there must be no railway organisation not covered by the BTP and no curtailment of their jurisdiction.
If anything goes wrong with the present arrangements, two things could happen. First, some bomb threats might not be dealt with properly or promptly. As a result, people might be killed or injured. In that event, the terrorists would have succeeded. Alternatively, because those who had to exercise their judgment on the bomb threats no longer had confidence in their system, BTP could order far more station closures. Again, the terrorists would have succeeded. The public will be protected only if there are proper and comprehensive arrangements that are properly regulated.
Given the Opposition's concern for the safety of passengers and their property, I did not believe it right to

leave the BTP for months after 1 April bereft of their proper powers, which they continued to operate. I suggested to the Government that they should introduce a one-clause Bill to put things right, and that they agreed to do. It almost goes without saying that the Bill that they introduced has not one clause but two and that it does not put things right. The Bill covers only England and Wales, presumably because the Government are satisfied that the law in Scotland is adequate. If that is so, surely it would be logical to apply that law in England and Wales. That would be simple and sensible—so the Government have done something else.
The Government propose wording that introduces new uncertainties that do not apply in Scotland and should not apply in England and Wales in future. Another fine mess the Government have got themselves into. The Bill provides that a constable will be able to investigate or arrest on the premises or
on and in the vicinity
of privatised railway premises, or "elsewhere", providing that the agreement between the owner of the premises and the BTP permits the constable to do so.
If privatisation proceeds as the Government claim, there could be more than 100 private owners of parts of the railway system. Each owner could have a different contract with the BTP. If that happens, BTP constables will need to carry a backpack of contract documents with them to ensure that what they are doing is covered by the appropriate agreement. If all the details are checked against the documents that the constable has with him, he will then presumably shout to the suspect, "You are nicked." Apparently the Government think that the suspect will be standing by waiting for the constable to finish his adjudication. That is preposterous.
In their letter to the police committee of the BTP—this has now been made clear in the Chamber—the Government have said that they will assuage the BTP's concern. Obviously there was concern, which is why the Minister had to write. There was also concern in British Rail. The Government have said that they will check on all the agreements to ensure that they all say the same thing. If that is to happen, why have they put such a ludicrous requirement into the Bill? If all the agreements are the same, there is no need to confine the authority or the jurisdiction of the police to the terms of each individual agreement. At present, however, the Bill sets out that requirement. The Government could grant a general power or dispensation. That is what they have done in Scotland. Apparently that approach works properly in Scotland, and we believe that it should apply here.
In the Minister's letter to the police committee, he seeks to quote three precedents. The only trouble is that they are not proper precedents. None of them refers to agreements that might be reached between the police and a private owner, with the private owner in the position of being able to decide what should be set out in the ageement.
Two of the agreements to which the Minister refers in his letter are with publicly owned bodies, so they would be reasonably under control. The other example is subject to agreement by the police in the first place regarding the terms of the contract. In other words, these examples should carry no weight in our discussions. We are not impressed by the Government's effort to cover up yet another fumble in the process of privatising the railways. There are some who claim effortless superiority; the Government seem to go in for effortless incompetence.
We would like the Government to accept in Committee this evening that the law in England and Wales should be brought in line with the law in Scotland. The detail of the relevant amendment that we have tabled may not be satisfactory. I am only too aware of that because I drafted it myself. I know that my drafting is usually just about as inadequate as that prepared for the Minister. It is quite possible that the drafting is wrong in detail, but I am sure that it is right in principle. It cannot be right to have a different law in Scotland—a wider and more effective law—that is not constrained by private agreements.
I remind the Minister of what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, said in Committee when we were considering what became the Railways Act 1993. He said:
Transport Police travel all over the country and that is why there is no territorial arrangement".— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 March 1993; c. 878.]
We know, of course, that other forces have those arrangements. We do not want a territorial arrangement for the BTP. We want all parts of the BTP to have the same powers throughout the country as they have at present in Scotland. The Minister must accept that in Scotland the BTP are not constrained by the contents of any agreement that they may have to reach with any private owners. If that is good enough for Scotland, it should be good enough for England and Wales.
The Bill is before us because we suggested that change should be made as there was a danger that the powers of the BTP would not be sufficient from 1 April. In the spirit in which we have proposed that the law should be changed—we have not obstructed the Bill's passage, and we do not intend to do so this evening—the Minister owes it to us to ensure that our arguments are accepted. If he cannot accept them and agree to changes this evening, he should give an undertaking that the appropriate amendment will be made in another place.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being in my place at the start of the debate. I had not anticipated as accurately as some hon. Members that the preceding debate would end rather quickly.
Like the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), I welcome the Bill in principle but regret that it is necessary. Throughout the passage of what is now the Railways Act 1993, several of us objected repeatedly to the indecent haste with which some important measures were being put together.
I well recall one morning in Committee when the Government turned up with a raft of amendments that had been tabled at the last possible moment. After the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) had advanced his arguments against them, they had to be withdrawn. The proceedings for the day were then scratched. I referred to that during the final stages of our consideration of the Bill. I meant to say that we were proceeding with the Government's amendments while the ink upon them was scarcely dry. Unfortunately, I said that the ink was scarcely wet. It was said by someone on the Bench behind mine that I had accidentally coined a new phrase but that in all the circumstances it was probably more accurate than the old one.
I am glad that the Government have recognised the deficiency of the legislation as we left it at the end of last year. Whatever arguments might be put to the contrary, the jurisdiction of the British Transport police was distinctly undermined in that they would be exceeding their jurisdiction if they attempted to stray beyond British Rail property when conducting their inquiries or trying to apprehend a suspect. One can imagine the public outcry if, after a mugging, theft or attempted rape, the British Transport police, in hot pursuit of a suspect, had to give up when the suspect leapt over a perimeter fence. The sorts of incidents that might arise during mass travel to football matches leave one very worried indeed.
I welcome the fact that the Government have attempted to address the problem, but, like Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, I voice some concerns about the Bill. I, too, am unable to understand why England and Wales are to have a regime that is different from that in Scotland. If the situation in Scotland is deemed to be adequate, that would seem an ideal model for England and Wales.
I am slightly concerned that commercial interests might be involved. After the railway network has been broken up and privatisation has smashed it into many different pieces, if different elements of the railway negotiate their own different agreements, there could be a real mess. It is essential that one form of jurisdiction should apply across the whole railway network. That is the crucial aim of the Bill, regardless of how it is attained.
I regret that I missed an earlier exchange between the Minister and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), when I think the question of exemptions from the licensing requirements of the Railways Act 1993 were dealt with. It is essential that the question of exemptions be dealt with. If the elements of the railways that are exempt from holding a licence were also to be exempt from a police services agreement, different regulations would apply to different parts of the railways. I also seek clarification about railway maintenance depots, leasing depots and freight depots.
Nowhere does the Bill mention people who are approaching the vicinity of the railways. We have conducted the argument only in terms of people leaving the vicinity. What about people who are approaching the railways with crime in mind? This matter must be addressed. On an everyday level, a train driver may come on duty having drunk excessive amounts of alcohol. If that were known about, the transport police must be able to enter the depot from which the driver is to start his work and deal with the situation in a preventative way rather than waiting until he reached the main network.
There are problems with this legislation, but I will not pursue the specifics any further tonight. The objective should be a universal system of jurisdiction throughout the railways by whatever means that that can be brought about. There should be no question of different commercial operations having different regulations with no one being clearly accountable for the whole.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: In case I omit to make my position clear, I state first that I fully support the passing of the Bill. It is desperately needed by the British Transport police if they are to continue their much-valued


and brave work in promoting and protecting the best interests of the travelling public. I recognise that this legislation needs to reach the statute book before 1 April.
I am extremely angry about the way in which this matter has been conducted by the Government and the way in which other people have acquiesced in procedures which I believe make a sham of parliamentary democracy. I am disappointed to have to speak in such terms, but I think that it needs to be said. Even though not many Members of Parliament are present, it needs to be made clear that the manner in which this important—I think the Minister referred to it as detailed—and complicated legislation is being dealt with is a total negation of proper scrutiny and parliamentary democracy.
Of course, this is not the most important Bill ever to pass through the House but it is a measure which requires proper scrutiny. Because of their incompetence, the Government are trying to get through all stages of the Bill in one parliamentary day. That is almost unprecedented; it happens when people invade our shores and when the integrity of the United Kingdom is put at risk. Normally, one would expect that parliamentarians and other interested parties would have a reasonable opportunity to examine legislation and to prepare appropriate amendments in a considered manner, but I and other Members have been denied that opportunity in this case.
I will explain why I think that the proceedings today are a charade. Since the last general election, the Minister for Public Transport and others on the Treasury Bench have been cautioned and counselled repeatedly about the need to safeguard the interests of the British Transport police. I can bear witness to that. On the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Act, I bored my colleagues almost silly going on about the need for the Minister to recognise their interests.
The Minister then issued a document entitled "The Future Status of the British Transport Police" which was referred to on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions and in various Committees of the House. Hon. Members have raised a plethora of questions and early-day motions urging the Government to be mindful of the need for precision in legislation which will avoid putting in jeopardy the powers and interests of the British Transport police. But we have seen a combination of arrogance and incompetence from Ministers who, on every occasion, have said to hon. Members, "Don't worry, it is all on board". They have not said that just to hon. Members; they have said it also to the chief constable and the British Transport Police Federation.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will at least concede that as long ago as September 1993 in correspondence with the British Transport Police Federation he acknowledged that there was a flaw in the legislation. So why is this legislation being railroaded through Parliament at the eleventh hour? There have been plenty of opportunities for the matter to come before Parliament. As recently as last week in another place it was conceded by the right hon. Earl Ferrers, Minister of State, Home Office, that legislation was needed in this area, but even then the Government did not come to the House of Commons and publish the Bill. An extra day would have given hon. Members the opportunity for greater scrutiny, consideration and understanding of the legislation, as well

as the opportunity to consult interested parties. It would also have allowed other parties, such as the chief constable and the British Transport Police Federation, to make representations.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has joined us. Unfortunately, he was unable to be here for the Minister's opening speech. That is a pity.

Mr. Neville Trotter: I spoke to my hon. Friend the Minister before the debate and explained that I had to take the receivers of Swan Hunter to see a Minister most urgently about the future of that company. I am sure that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will appreciate the extremely important nature of that constituency problem.

Mr. Mackinlay: That is why I said that I was pleased to see the hon. Member for Tynemouth. It is good that he has arrived. No doubt he will give us the benefit of his views and information. I understand that he is the advisor to the British Transport Police Federation which is anxious that its views should be heard in this debate.
I am a friend of the British Transport Police Federation. It should be stated on the Floor of the House that yesterday, on my own initiative, I faxed a copy of the Bill to the chairman of the federation who, prior to that, had not seen it. I blame the Government for that. How can it be right that the representative body in the police has not been allowed to see the Bill officially until today if, indeed, it has received a copy now? As of yesterday afternoon, that body had not received a copy of the Bill. It received a copy only when I sent one, on my own initiative, via my fax at home. That is an outrage and an insult to that representative body.
The Minister had the audacity to thank various parties, including the hon. Member for Tynemouth, for drawing attention to the matter. The Minister also mentioned Lord Harris of Greenwich. I took the opportunity to examine Hansard from the other place and it is clear that Lord Harris of Greenwich believes that the Government have shown unprecedented incompetence in this matterm, so it was interesting that the Minister referred to Lord Harris. I understand that the Minister will be going to the British Transport Police Federation conference later this week. The federation should feel the Minister's collar and I hope that he receives a thoroughly good earbashing for his incompetence and that of his colleagues.
We are considering this Bill because there has been an error. The matter goes to the heart of our proceedings in this place. No one can pretend that we give adequate scrutiny to legislation in this House, as has been demonstrated by the error which gave rise to the Bill. To some extent, all 651 Members of this place are to blame. In particular, the Government are to blame for pushing through the Railways Act 1993 in a very arrogant manner, regardless of the views of hon. Members. The Government guillotined the proceedings on that legislation, but when it reached the statute book they found that it contained an error. In other circumstances, people would be dismissed for such a costly and fundamental error, but that does not happen in the Government. There are two standards in this country, as has been shown yet again by the present scenario.
The Government now want to rush this Bill through in one day and at the eleventh hour. If any hon. Member is confident that the Bill contains no errors, perhaps he will show his hand. It would be absurd and would make


nonsense of our proceedings if we found that the Bill contained an error after it had completed its passage, but there is a real danger of that as hon. Members have riot had an opportunity to study the Bill or to seek advice or counsel about what it means.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) raised some interesting points to which he did not know the answers, while my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked some rhetorical questions. No doubt we shall receive answers from the Minister. Members should have an opportunity to explore what the Bill means before debating it in the Chamber. Apart from the Minister—and I am not too confident. about him—not one hon. Member fully understands the contents of the Bill. Yet we are expected to give it a Second Reading, allow it a Committee stage and then give it a Third Reading all in one day. That is wrong.
Later on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will take the Chair as First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend has said that hon. Members do not understand the Bill. Does he agree that that is because the Railways Act 1993 is of such labyrinthine absurdity in relation to the consequences of breaking up a national system into various parts, the number of which we do not know, and under agreements of which we do not have sight? It is not possible for us to know what kind of agreements are referred to in this Bill as they have yet to be drawn up among organisations which do not yet exist, in a degree and in numbers of which we are unaware.

Mr. Mackinlay: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is the danger of this Bill, particularly with regard to the speed of its passage. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made a serious point. There will be a plethora of agreements, but there cannot be consistency in all of them. They will follow the same theme, but there will be variations on that theme. It will be most unsatisfactory for police officers or chief constables to have to operate in that way.
If we had more time to deal with the Bill, we might understand the points, but it is an inescapable fact that none of us has had an opportunity to explore what the Bill involves or its implications. I assume that the motion will be passed and that the Bill will be considered in Committee, although I shall resist that and I shall be pleased to welcome any hon. Members who would support me in the Lobby to resist the Bill being considered by a Committee of the whole House today. This is a fundamental principle and one that I will not shirk. I am opposed to the way in which the Bill is proceeding because it is bad legislation and bad for Parliament.
Assuming that the Bill passes to a Committee of the whole House, I shall wish to raise points of order with the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. I believe that amendments should be explored and examined. The hon. Member for North Devon made a valid point about people who are heading towards committing a crime or contemplating a crime. What powers exist in respect of such people?
The Bill is entitled the Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Bill. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the graphic scenes on television a few months ago when there was a riot against the poll tax in Trafalgar square and a rioter threw a piece of scaffolding through the window of a police

car. It is a matter of fact that that police car was a British Transport police vehicle. As things stand, those officers had no power to intervene in crimes being committed in that vicinity other than the powers that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hold as ordinary citizens. I am also told—this also relates to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras—that such a situation does not prevail in Scotland.
We have an opportunity to remedy that situation and to clarify the jurisdiction of the BTP instead of fudging and confusing the issue. My objection to the details of the Bill, to the extent that I am able to understand them, is that far from clarifying the powers of the BTP, the Bill will cause confusion. I used the example that I did to demonstrate how, if my amendments were considered and accepted by the Committee of the whole House, we could clarify the powers of British Transport police officers outside of railway premises. The police officers who are at the sharp end would welcome clarification of their powers.
I take a great interest in uniforms, regalia and cap badges. When I left St. Stephen's entrance recently I saw a British Transport police officer. To an ordinary member of the public he was simply a police officer. Most members of the public would have assumed that he was a member of the Metropolitan police. Had there been an incident outside St. Stephen's entrance, the public would not have paused to consider whether that officer was a Metropolitan police officer or a British Transport police officer. To Joe public, someone wearing a policeman's uniform is a police officer for 24 hours of the day and the public would have expected that officer to respond to an incident in that area. The way things are at present, however, that police officer would have been constrained from getting involved in any incident. Indeed, he would have put himself in jeopardy. He would have had to make a split-second decision whether to intervene, and if he had intervened he would have had only the same powers as ordinary citizens.
I appeal to hon. Members to pause for a moment and consider whether we are doing justice to the police and to the institution of Parliament by treating such a serious matter in what I regard as a flip way in the manner in which the Bill is being pushed through. The Bill must be read a Second time and it must reach the statute book because it is much needed: it is inescapable that the powers must be restored to the British Transport police. But we could have an improved Bill—one which would bring credit rather than discredit to Parliament—if we concluded the Second Reading today and the Bill went into a Committee of the whole House on another occasion or, indeed, was referred to a Standing Committee. Hon. Members and people outside the House could then improve the Bill and, above all, understand its contents. For that reason, I support the Second Reading, but I hope that even at this stage Parliament can be persuaded to give the Bill the proper scrutiny that such an important matter deserves.

Mr. Neville Trotter: I am sorry if controversy has been brought into the Bill, which I thought would commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The British Transport police sets an excellent example to other forces. It is a force some 2,000 strong. It is noted for its efficiency and the calibre of its officers. In its


organisation, it was ahead of many of the reforms that are now being introduced by the Home Office forces. It is led by a well-respected chief constable.
The British Transport police have a particular and serious problem in that they are dealing daily with a large number of terrorist threats and suspect parcels left on railway premises, amounting to something like 4,500 incidents each year. Every one of those incidents must be dealt with sensibly and correctly by the officers who respond to them. That is a considerable responsibility which descends at times on the shoulders of junior and young officers. There is more than one explosion every month on railway premises. Apart from their normal task of policing the railways and ensuring the safety and security of passengers and those who work on the railways, the BTP now face a very considerable added burden from terrorism.
I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on one thing at least—the need for the powers of the British Transport police to be extended, especially in circumstances in which BTP officers are the first to respond to a terrorist situation outside railway premises. At Bishopsgate, the first inspector to arrive on the scene was a British Transport police inspector. He did what had to be done but he did not in fact have the power to do it. He got by by using his common sense and his uniform. It is true that to the public the British Transport police are policemen, and all policemen are the same. The issue needs to be sorted out. If it cannot be sorted out in this Bill, which is making a remarkably rapid passage through the House so that it can become law before 31 March, I shall certainly return to it, and I suspect that the hon. Member for Thurrock will return to it as well.
In the past 18 months, we have seen a great deal of uncertainty inevitably as a result of rail privatisation. During that time, my right hon. Friend the Minister and I have had numerous meetings with federation representatives. My right hon. Friend has always been fully supportive at those meetings. He made it clear from the start that he agreed that the force should remain as a national and unified force—there has been no suggestion that it should be split up and its role handed to local Home Office forces.
It is regrettable that we need to spend time today debating the powers of the BTP in this way. It would have been much better if the whole issue had been decided when the Bill went through the House of Lords. However, so many political points were raised in the debates about privatisation that such sensible points were guillotined at the end of the day.

Mr. Wilson: I find the hon. Gentleman's comments absolutely stunning. Is he suggesting that the issues that detained the House of Lords and threw the unwanted legislation into chaos were unimportant? Which issues does he think were unimportant—perhaps the concessionary travel for old age pensioners and the discounted through ticketing? Can he name the unimportant matters that detained both Houses of Parliament? Incidentally, will he declare his interest in the matter?

Mr. Trotter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that, technically, I have not declared an interest, but it was referred to earlier. Hon. Members are

well aware that I represent the British Transport Police Federation. The delays to the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons were often on tedious and irrelevant points. If it had not been for delays on matters of no great moment, there would have been more time to debate the issues of substance.
I shall return to the situation that the BTP face in the changed circumstances of privatisation. The essential factor is that there will be a stipulation that all of those who operate the railways in the future will be required to use the British Transport police force for their principal core police activities. That this stipulation will apply has been amply confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Minister.
I have no doubt whatever that the force will have the same important role to play in the future of the railways as it has had in the past. It will continue to police the railways, to ensure security and safety and to follow up crimes that are committed in connection with the railways. It is important for the BTP to have powers not only on railway premises but also to follow up offences related to the railways in areas outside railway premises. That is what the Bill seeks to do.
In the future, Railtrack will have an important part to play in the organisation of the BTP. I took it upon myself recently to meet Robert Horton, the chairman of Railtrack. I asked him to put in writing what he told me, and it will be helpful to the House if I spell out what he said:

I am happy to be able to let you know my views on BTP and my resolve to make sure that they are properly funded and that this is not an 'optional extra' for the franchisees.
Representatives of the federation will meet me and Mr. Horton in the near future.
I have no doubt that the BTP will retain their present position as the national force policing the railway system. They will continue to fulfil excellently their vital role, and as a result of this Bill they will obtain the powers that they need to continue in the way that they should. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Bob Cryer: It is worth raising a few points about the Bill before it zips through the House. The Bill is before the House because of an error made by the Department of Transport, the relevant Ministers and the civil service advisers. We shall spend half a day in Parliament remedying an omission in previous legislation.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who is a paid representative of the British Transport police, argued that we are debating this Bill because we spent time debating the rest of the privatisation legislation and issues, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said, such as the through ticketing system which will be non-existent, the universal concessions to pensioners and other concessions, and the whole panoply of absurd right-wing extremism which the Bill represents. Two right-wing representatives of the Tories are present in the Chamber—the Minister for Public Transport and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), who is grinning. He is a well-known right-wing extremist in the Tory party, and undoubtedly proud of it.
The Bill is one of the consequences of rushing through legislation to break up a national service which is so complex in its application. It is not the fault of the House that the omission of the British Transport police was allowed to go through; it is the fact that we had to spend so much time getting explanations from the Minister as to


how the whole thing would work without bringing to a halt the railway service in one or more parts. I predicted then, and I predict now, that privatisation of the railway will do just that. It is not the House's fault; it is the Government's fault in producing such absurdly complex legislation, which will have the effect of producing a deteriorating standard of service.
I want to raise some points in relation to the transport police. It is not only the serious and dramatic incidents of potential terrorist activity and the planting of bombs on the railway system which are of concern. The British Transport police must police 11,000 route miles, and it also polices the retention of the protection on both sides of the track, which makes 22,000 route miles of fencing.
British Rail, unlike continental railways, was established not with open access, but with the requirement that people should be shielded from access to the railway by two lines of fencing. Therefore, the British Transport police have a duty and an obligation to try their level best—it is difficult in the present circumstances—to reduce the amount of vandalism, which can be sometimes encouraged by the lack of maintenance to fencing on either side of the track.
The Government are the pillars of capitalism and they impose their philosophy on the public sector willy-nilly. They impose what they call efficiency, and their efficiency is sacking as many people as can be sacked. That is why 4 million people have been on the dole in about 10 of the 15 years that the Government have been in office. Vandalism has increased on the railways. Signal boxes have been closed, and stations are unstaffed.
We heard earlier this afternoon at Question Time that 80 per cent. of the 1,000 stations in London are unstaffed after 6 o'clock. That means that, in winter, the stations are unstaffed after dark, and that is clearly an encouragement to vandalism. There are hundreds of thousands of people on the streets of our cities. Some of them are homeless because of the Government's housing policies, and some are wandering the streets because they are unemployed and have nothing to do because of the Government's wretched and wicked philosophies. Those philosophies are all about putting people out of work and imposing so-called efficiencies—which are really false efficiencies—on the public utilities and elsewhere. The British Transport police have an important and enormous day-to-day task in trying to preserve life and limb by ensuring that people cannot get on to the railways, which can represent an enormous danger.
What about developments which have taken place? It is curious that the legislation, provides that a British Transport police constable can act as a constable only
to the extent that he is acting as a constable in pursuance of a transport police services agreement";
and that
he shall … only so act in accordance with the terms of that agreement.
One of the ways that British Rail has tried to reduce the financial burdens which have been placed upon it by the Government is to get rid of the obligations of maintenance of overhead bridges. If it can get rid of an overhead bridge by transferring it to either a private body, if it is an access bridge, or a public body such as a local authority, it does so. It has been encouraged by the Government to do just that. Maintenance will be carried out by the local authority under the terms and conditions which have been laid down by the civil engineer of British Rail.
What happens when somebody on a bridge is throwing obstacles at a train, either to encourage a derailment or simply to hit the driver? That is not unknown. That bridge, and the local authority which is maintaining it, presumably must be subject to an agreement for the British Transport police constable to have jurisdiction. If there is not a service agreement in existence, the constable will merely be able to stand to one side and say that he has no jurisdiction. Under the legislation, he will not be allowed to intervene as he is not a police constable in transport terms on the bridge. That bridge is owned by a private organisation because British Rail has sold it to get rid of the statutory obligations; and the Government want them to do that anyhow.
A number of intriguing circumstances could arise. What about the miles of desert which have been created by all the clever people at the Department of Transport who love road transport so much and have denigrated and denuded a fine railway system? Freight depots and marshalling yards have been closed, and British Rail has been encouraged to sell them off. It has relied on the selling of assets for a significant percentage of its revenue.
All those assets must now be subject to an agreement if British Transport police officers are to have jurisdiction over those assets in relation to the track which runs alongside, between or through them. If there is to be comprehensive policing alongside the 11,000 route miles—over and above the 11,000 route miles where trains run—it is possible that we will need a large number of service agreements to make sure that constables have adequate jurisdiction where railways have some access and where sections of land have been sold off as a result of pressure from the Government.
My hon. Friends have raised an important matter which has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides—except, curiously enough, the hon. Member for Tynemouth, who is a representative of the British Transport Police Federation. The hon. Gentleman simply accepted the legislation, and did not think anything about it. He believed that the House should rubber-stamp the Bill and pass it, in spite of the difficulties which will be created by the legislation for the operation of the powers of the British Transport police.
We should debate the matter so that the Minister can give us a comprehensive answer. There are other areas in which the British Transport police operate well away from operating lines, and there is the question of vandalism by children where a special duty of care applies to keep people off the railway tracks.
When the franchise holders take over, will Railtrack be encouraged to contract out such requirements as the statutory obligation for the maintenance of fencing? Will that create a greater burden on the transport police through children having access to tracks and creating difficulties for drivers? The Minister knows that British Rail has to run what are called Q trains to catch trespassers and warn them of the dangers. Trespassing can result in rapid injury and death because of the pace of trains, particularly the electrified trains which are much quieter than their steam and diesel predecessors.
Lastly, I want to raise the question of sections of former British Rail property which are well away from the railways. For example, if a preserved viaduct is taken over by a preservation society, it can at the moment be supervised and guarded against vandalism by the BTP. What happens if there is an agreement, as there is in one


case, about a viaduct which has been refurbished and preserved? The example to which I refer is a grade 2 listed monument in Cumbria.
What happens when a structure such as that is taken over by a trust to look after it and to give people the opportunity of looking at a great architectural structure? Does there have to be a separate agreement for the BTP to operate in an area where a private organisation is involved in the maintenance and operation of the viaduct, albeit a public trust? The trust is dedicated not to profit but to the retention of the viaduct for public access in conjunction with a nature reserve.
The more one thinks about it, the greater the potential for these agreements to be combined into one huge volume. A transport constable will look at a situation, and he will have to turn to page 1,035 to check whether the area is subject to an agreement before he can take action. By the time he has looked up the relevant page and clause, the people will have disappeared. So the constable will not be so effective.
I regret to say that the paid representative of the British Transport Police Federation has departed the Chamber—[Interruption.]—and has returned perhaps to take part in the debate, having arrived late in any case. I wonder whether the British Transport Police Federation thinks that it is getting value for money. I can say with confidence that, if there is a cause for anxiety, Opposition Members will take it up without being paid to do so.
I hope that the Minister will give us some answers. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). He asked why the Bill was being pushed through in such a short time. The Minister is surely a little trusting to present to the House the notion that the business managers alone determine the way in which business is conducted. Do not Ministers have some comment to make when a proposal is made? Do not they say, for example, that they would like longer or that the amount of time is all right because a measure will go through on the nod?
Surely Ministers are not so completely remote from the business managers that they cannot say, "We have made one terrible error already. This legislation is the result of that error. Should not we linger over it a little longer to allow more time for amendments to be tabled so that we do not make any errors the second time round?" I do not believe that the Minister could not make such representations or that the Leader of the House would ignore them if he did. So I believe that the Minister is content at his own risk to push the Bill through in the most rapid time that he regards as convenient. The House is not here to be convenient for the Executive. The longer that we take over examination of the Bill, the more likely it is that it will be better legislation.

Mr. Bruce George: We have been far too beastly to the Minister. We should thank him for giving us the opportunity to debate a subject rarely debated in the House—policing outside the Home Department police forces. Perhaps that was his motive. Perhaps he wanted to give us that opportunity.
I did not serve on the Committee that considered what became the Railways Act 1993, section 132 of which says:

The Secretary of State may make a scheme".
When I read that, I wondered what it reminded me of. It occurred to me that it was obvious. Yesterday I had the privilege of attending a rally in Birmingham that was led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It was hosted by Tony Robinson, who plays the part of Baldrick in "Blackadder", who always says something like, "I have a scheme" or, "I have a cunning plan." The element of farce in the Bill is obvious.
This is the time for apologies. I must apologise to the Minister for missing his speech. He has apologised for missing the British Transport police. As I am deeply interested in history, I looked up the history of the British Transport police force. I found that it went back to the 1830s and the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company. The officers appointed had constabulary powers. One would have thought that the 160 years or so since the origins of the British Transport police would have allowed our scintillating civil servants, known to be the best in the world, the opportunity to learn about the powers of those officers. If the civil servants were not aware of the powers of the transport police in England, they could have looked more closely at the powers of the transport police in Scotland or other non-Home Department police forces. Therefore, the error was inexcusable.
That error illustrates the contempt of the Executive for the legislature. The Executive say, "It does not really matter. We can make legislation swiftly, the legislature is not up to it. After all, half the Committee will be placemen from our side. All they are interested in doing is their correspondence or their crosswords. As for the Opposition, they are not smart enough to spot our errors." In many ways, the House has been reduced to the level of the old eastern European rubber-stamp legislatures.
The Government's reputation for political competence is in tatters. Their reputation, if they have any left, for administrative competence is even more shredded. This little error has been exposed not as a result of internal examination but by people on the outside saying that the Government have got it wrong. If the error had not been corrected, the transport police would have been in a bizarre position after 1 April. A couple of British Rail transport policemen running to apprehend an alleged criminal who was leaving British Rail premises would have panted to each other, "Do we have the power to pursue? Yes, we have the powers of the ordinary citizen." While they were debating their constitutional position, the hood would have made his exit. Perhaps 1 April has an element of farce about it.
We are having to debate the Bill rather swiftly. On Friday only a photocopied Bill was available to us. It is rather embarrassing and humiliating that the House of Commons, given two or three days to investigate a failure of drafting, is sent a photocopy and has to wait until the day of the debate to have a proper copy made available to Members.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Has my hon. Friend thought that the last Bill that went through this place at exactly this speed was the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, which is not exactly noted for being the most beautifully crafted piece of legislation that the House of Commons has ever accepted?

Mr. George: Those who are aggrieved by the Opposition's guerilla warfare in protest at the contempt


with which the Executive has treated the House—not only the Opposition—must accept that the Bill is further evidence of the need to bring it to the attention of the Government that they must treat the House with rather more respect than they have shown so far. We have an opportunity now briefly to discuss policing outside our Home Office police forces.
What has happened with the Bill has shown elements of farce and a lack of political and administrative competence. It is an example—this is my crucial point—of the indifference bordering on contempt that the Government have shown not just to the House but to the non-Home Department police forces. We forget about them. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said that people did not know the difference between transport policemen and other police officers. They look alike and they dress alike. Their vehicles are similar. They have somewhat similar powers. They are trained in exactly the same way. They have, at least until the Bill is passed, more or less analogous powers and they are exceedingly competent.
Non-Home Department police forces are suffering because some of their responsibilities have been eliminated as a result of the collapse of industry and because the Government are intent on privatisation. The Government's mania for privatisation is manifest in industry, but they have had to develop a more cunning plan to deal with the health service—witness trusts. They have had greater difficulty in dealing with the military, but they are privatising in the best way that they can.
The Government are privatising police forces. That process will continue. The Home Office is defining core police functions. I am sure that they will be the responsibility of the police and everything else will be up for grabs by the private sector, which will muscle in. What is more, that will be an unregulated private sector.

Mr. Mackinlay: Has my hon. Friend noticed that it is intended that as from 1 April the British Transport police will be vested in Railtrack and that the Government have announced their not medium-term intention that Railtrack should be privatised? Is not that a matter for grave concern to the British Transport police and other non-Home Office forces who are threatened by the Government with privatisation?

Mr. George: One of the advantages of the absurd timing is that I am able to give some publicity for a conference that I am organising in Committee Room 14 on Monday, which will consider the future of policing, public and private. It is fortuitous that one of the speakers will be the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police, who will speak about the future of the non-Home Department police forces. I do not know what he will say; I am only the organiser of the conference. The content will be entirely his. However, in my opinion, the future of the non-Home Department forces—if the Bill is anything to go by—is uncertain, at least during the next two or three years. It is uncertain because the Government cannot even draft the legislation properly when they deal with it, and they are privatising where they can.
There is an even greater threat to the Ministry of Defence police. As a result of the Blelloch report, they will apparently be replaced by redundant service men. It seems patently bizarre—I know that I use that word frequently

—if, to deal with redundancy in one sector of the Ministry of Defence, one creates redundancy in another sector, but that is an example.
The Government do not like the non-Home Department police forces. I am worried about the transport police. There may not be a direct threat to them now, but I know exactly what will happen once privatisation takes hold. The privatised entities will say to the Minister, probably unofficially, "This is very expensive. After all, we are paying full policing rates for these guys. They are going through so much training. Surely we can train them less effectively than the training college that the fools have to go through to become as competent as police officers. It is much too costly. Minister, can't we find a way to reduce our costs?"
Obviously the Government are intent on doing that. It has happened in the Ministry of Defence with the royal ordnance factories, and the sidelining of the Ministry of Defence police in many areas. It is a continuation of the mania for cheap policing, but cheap policing is poor policing. One may appear to gain, looking at a balance sheet, but I can say, with some experience, that one will not gain if policing and security personnel are not trained to a level that is commensurate with the growing threat from the criminal and from terrorism. The international situation will deteriorate so that there will be more targets, static and mobile, requiring better, not deteriorating, policing.
I believe that there should be a future for the transport police. They should not have to look behind them to see whether private companies are muscling in on the work that they do. There is an enormous vacuum in the Home Office's knowledge of policing and it appears to be indifferent to the way in which the contract security industry is evolving. There is no regulatory system for guarding, for private investigators, for retail security. That requires investigation, as does the way in which the Home Department police forces, including the transport police, operate.
I hope that, as a result of receiving this little slap across the wrist from the legislature, the Minister will take the transport police more seriously than his Department has done hitherto, and his colleagues will take the non-Home Department police forces more seriously. Morale is a subject that we must all, including the Executive, tackle. What will be the future of those forces? Is there a real future for them? Is their future merely to await the time when the private sector is able to move in and take over? We know exactly what will happen unless that private sector operates under a system of regulation. Standards will deteriorate and standards of security will diminish even further.
If British Rail or what succeeds it moves as swiftly as the Government have moved with this legislation, we should see trains moving far more swiftly. I hope that the Minister will be mindful of the criticism to which he has been subjected and that the drafting process will be improved. I hope that hon. Members will develop the enthusiasm to challenge the Executive and to provide a better system of scrutiny.
If one thing emerges from this farce, it is that Parliament's capacity to scrutinise is woefully weak. Should that continue, we shall be replacing the old Supreme Soviet in the legislatures of eastern Europe as the superfluous Parliament in the western world.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Tonight we must learn the lesson that when Governments legislate in an autocratic and hasty way, they soon regret it. Few Bills have been more deeply unpopular than that which became the Railways Act 1993. It was condemned by the Transport Select Committee unanimously, by members of all parties, and many Members of the House have the right to claim that we were wise before the event.
So unpopular was the Bill that at one time the Transport Select Committee sought from extremist organisations, such as the right-wing think tanks, support for the Government's intention. The Committee went so far as to take the unique step of advertising in the press for anyone who was willing to support the Government's plans, and no one came forward to support them. Throughout the long hours on that Committee, the only people who said anything in the Bill's favour were those who had a vested interest in its outcome.
The 1993 Act is an atrocious piece of legislation. We all remember the comments that were made in the House when the Act went through. The resistance from the other place and this House was deep and serious. The Government chose to ignore it and behaved like an elective dictatorship.
Another argument is going on at the moment about decisions taken by another organisation that is a union of countries—the European Union. The Government are pressing for a blocking motion on that by 27 members or 23 members, which amounts to 34 per cent. of the membership of that organisation. I have asked the Prime Minister, in my usual helpful, constructive way, whether he would support in the House a blocking measure on Bills if it were supported by 34 per cent. of Members of the House. His answer, which I have just received, was disappointingly brief and consisted of one word, which was no.
As a democracy, we are in serious trouble because if there were such a blocking motion in the House as the Government are demanding in the other union of nations, the European Union, we would have far better legislation. The Government would have to persuade the Members of the House of the wisdom of their policies. We would not have had the Railways Act. We would not have had the poll tax. We would not have had all the other damaging pieces of legislation. We have a Government who have managed to be popular for a few days every five years, following which their popularity disappears rapidly for a long period.
We have had two Bills recently that apply to my country, Wales—and Wales only. Eighty-four per cent. of the elected Members for Wales have opposed those Bills, yet they have passed through the House, pushed through by elected Members from other parts of the United Kingdom, who have no interest in those Bills, who do not understand them and whose constituents will not be affected.
We are here tonight to mark a major error by the Government. Although I apologise for not being here to hear the Minister's statement, unfortunately I would not have missed an apology by the Government. They should apologise to the House for that major error.

Mr. Brian Wilson: We are discussing a rushed piece of legislation, introduced with 10 days to go before the unwanted fragmentation of our railways, to avoid leaving the British Transport police virtually bereft of powers. The sole reason for that state of affairs is the Government's failure to deal with the issue during the progress of that demented and discredited piece of legislation, the Railways Act 1993, which poses such a threat to the future of our rail network.
I put that statement of fact on the record because, listening to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), one might have had to suspend disbelief. He appears to regard it as an irksome necessity to drop in occasionally to earn his consultancy fees. First, he objected to this matter being treated as controversial. He expected us to turn up, vote the Bill through and go home. Ten days before the unwanted upheaval in the British railways system, no legislation is on the statute book to give the British Transport police, which the hon. Gentleman is supposed to represent in this House, the powers which they need. We have before us tonight a Bill with which the British Transport police are not happy and the hon. Gentleman wonders why we must waste more than 20 minutes discussing it. He wants us simply to wave it through and go to dinner. I hope that the British Transport police read the transcript of these proceedings.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth then suggested that we need not be here at all. The matter could have been dealt with months ago, had not all the footling other matters for which he is not the paid consultant had to be dealt with in this House and the other place.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to cast his mind back to the issues that took the Government to the wire on the Railways Act. I do not know whether he has received letters from railway pensioners or whether he has railway pensioners in his constituency, but my hon. Friends and I and many Tory Members who are missing from those Benches have received hundreds of letters expressing genuine concern that the Government are seeking to use the mask of rail privatisation to get the Treasury's hands on the railway pension fund. That issue exercised the House night after night and encouraged Members on both sides of the House of Lords to try to force Ministers, until the last possible moment, to rescind their policy and accept railway pensioners' rights. A few short months later, the hon. Member for Tynemouth has the cheek to make a brief appearance in the Chamber and say that this matter could have been dismissed lightly for his convenience and that of the Minister.
Only one set of people is responsible for the fact that we are back here tonight. Those same people are responsible for this legislation in the first place and for trying to perpetrate that dreadful act against railway pensioners—the Government, represented tonight by the Minister for Public Transport. I do not recall the hon. Member for Tynemouth, in defence of the interests of the British Transport police, British Rail pensioners or those of our rail network, questioning or voting against a dot or comma of the Railways Act. For him to complain that it is the fault of anyone but the Government that we are in this position is offensive. With his throw-away remarks that we are wasting our time here and could have rubber-stamped the substance of tonight's Bill months ago, he has introduced an element of controversy into tonight's debate.
Many serious questions must be asked about the Bill. Most of them centre around the phrase in line 29 of clause 1, "transport police services agreement". The hon. Member for Tynemouth probably thinks that it is a wonderful idea that, instead of one integrated British Transport police serving every element of the network, it should be like catering contracts put out to Macdonalds with the transport police obliged to seek service agreements. Each component part of our fragmented rail network will have to make those agreements with the British Transport police.
Opposition Members and the British Transport police are concerned about the word "agreement". Will the Minister explain much more clearly whether that implies that two parties must agree on something, or whether it is an obligation? Is there an obligation to have an agreement and accept what is in that agreement? Is there a fixed set of terms within that agreement or is it literally a case of bargaining in each specific case until an agreement is reached? The only guidance which we have from the Minister is in his letter of 21 March—today's date—to David Rayner, chairman of the British Transport police. But it does not resolve the ambiguity, because it says:
Since all licence holders referred to above must have an agreement approved by the Secretary of State for the provision of core police services determined by the Police Committee, you have my assurance that the Secretary of State will ensure consistency of agreements. In particular, he will seek to ensure that provisions in the agreements, which might affect the jurisdiction of constables, are consistent so that British Transport Police constables can have a clear and unambiguous understanding of their jurisdiction.
So many questions are raised by those two sentences that I might have expected the paid advisor of the transport police to ask some of them but, as he did not, it has been left for my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and others to ask them.
The Minister is aware of the difference between precise and imprecise language. What does "consistency of agreements" mean? Will agreements all be the same? Will they be a matter of negotiation? The Minister's letter says that he will "seek" to ensure that provisions in the agreement are consistent. What does "seek" mean? To anyone who uses the English language normally, it means that he will have a go and try to encourage the parties to come to an agreement. But if the parties say that they do not want that agreement, the search might be in vain and me Minister may have to seek again next year or the year after. The language is imprecise about whether there will be an element of compunction within those agreements or whether they will be negotiable.
What the Minister has told us tonight and the transport police in that letter does not answer the question but opens up new questions. Either there is an obligation on licence holders—the companies that will be established by the Railways Act—to enter into obligations to use the British Transport police on certain terms, or there is not. If there is no such obligation, there will be massive uncertainties and precisely the situation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred will arise. Depending on which fragmented element of the railway the British Transport police are working for at any time, they will have to check the handbook to see whether the terms of that agreement are what they understand them to be. If that is what the Minister is offering the House, it is inadequate. He must understand that as well as any Opposition Members, but will he admit it?
Will the Minister clarify the term, "licence holders"? This is an exploratory question and I might be going up the wrong alleyway. To what extent is the term cross-referrable with the Railways (Class and Miscellaneous Exemptions) Order 1994, which has not yet been agreed to on the Floor of the House or in Committee? It contains a large number of exemptions from the requirement to hold a licence. Many are perfectly understandable, such as exemptions for steam railways and certain maintenance depots. Even within the context that we are discussing tonight, some exemptions would be understandable. But is an exemption from the requirement to hold a licence under the Railways Act translatable as being not subject to the provisions of this Bill? If a company is not a licence holder, must it still use the British Transport police?
The Minister will understand that my concern about that matter is strengthened by the repeated use of the phrase "licence holders" in his letter to David Rayner.
I reserve the right to return to this question, but an intervention from the Minister would be very welcome. The hon. Gentleman could bring the debate to a conclusion right now. If licence holders are the only operators or companies to be covered by the legislation, the Minister may—totally inadvertently—have been a little misleading in replies to questions that I put to him earlier. He may wish to clarify his thinking, especially in respect of the channel tunnel and the Heathrow express. At this stage, what we need is clarification—very important clarification, I suggest.
We are dealing with a world that will begin to develop only on 1 April. I hope that it will not go very far, but it may go a little further than I should like. Some very undesirable operators may be brought on to the scene. Mr. James Sherwood, the man who bought and sold Sealink and British Transport Hotels, is on record as having said that the last thing he wants to do is employ the British Transport police. We are not dealing here with something hypothetical; we are dealing with Mr. Sherwood and, I believe, with other operators, one of whose early aims is to get rid of the British Transport police and employ private security firms. Thus we must know how strong are the guarantees concerning retention of the services of that force.
We must know also who will determine how much has to be paid for those services and how the money will be collected. Once again, is it a matter for negotiation, or is it a question of somebody—I shall come in a moment to the question of which somebody—being able to lay down the charges and then, in effect, precept the companies, saying, "These are the charges, and you will pay them as a condition of continuing to operate services or any other function of the railway"? Who will lay down the charges, what rights of enforcement will there be, and what will happen to a franchisee who fails to pay up? It is very important that these questions be answered.
I should like to deal now with the question of jurisdiction. If everyone thinks that the way in which things work in Scotland is right, that there is no need for new legislation for Scotland, where the British Transport police have the right to pursue and investigate in a more liberal way than in the rest of Britain, why in heaven's name should not we use the opportunity of this legislation to create uniformity throughout the country?
In his letter to David Rayner, the Minister says:
It was never intended that the Bill would do other than address the defect in the Railways Act 1993. Jurisdiction in


respect of non-railway activities is a separate issue, which is not the subject of this legislation.
Fair enough, but why? When next will the House of Commons deal with legislation dealing specifically with the British Transport police? If we agree that there is a better legislative model in operation elsewhere in the United Kingdom, why should not we incorporate it in the Bill? I hope that in the course of tonight's debate the Minister will look sympathetically at that argument. There is no case against uniformity.
On a specific point of detail, it has been suggested to me that I should ask the Minister who is on the police committee and how future membership will be determined.

Mr. Mackinlay: As I am confused, I should like to underline my hon. Friend's request. We need to be told, not only for our own sake but for the sake of officers of the British Transport police, whether it is the intention that, on a day-to-day basis, this body will be under the control and stewardship of Railtrack—I believe that to be the position—or at arm's length from Railtrack.
I should like to return to a point that I flagged earlier: the Government's expressed intention to privatise Railtrack. Whether or not the British Transport police are to be under the control of Railtrack from 1 April, what would be the position if the Government were given an opportunity to put privatisation legislation through the House? The threat of privatisation, either in whole or in part, of the functions of the British Transport police is felt by every police officer. We need and have a right to know what the Government's intention is.

Mr. Wilson: The Minister will have noted my hon. Friend's remarks. On the question of the privatisation of Railtrack, we shall cross that viaduct when we come to it. However, I do not think that that will happen this side of a general election, unless the Government are taking the suicide pills again. My hon. Friend's question concerning structure is one in respect of which I should value more elucidation. My understanding is that the British Transport police continues to be a subsidiary of the British Railways Board—and that much I welcome—but, with regard to the precise relationship with Railtrack, I understand that body to be a client of the British Railways Board in securing the services of the British Transport police, much along the lines of any of the other entities being created by the Railways Act. No doubt the Minister will fill us in.
I do not want to detain the House, but these are immensely important questions concerning not just matters of detail but the basis of the Bill and the extent to which it will meet the very legitimate concerns of the British Transport police and the public. Eventually, as in the case of everything to do with this legislation, it is the public who should be borne in mind. A shocking proportion of crimes of violence are committed within a very narrow radius of railway stations. There is enormous fear, particularly among women using railway stations late at night. That, as a by-product of this legislation—a short Bill to be rushed through 10 days before it takes effect—the powers of the British Transport police are to be seriously diluted is an unacceptable proposition and one in respect of which the Minister must answer much more satisfactorily to the House.
All of this is a product of rail privatisation legislation.

In particular, it is a part of the fragmentation of the railways, which almost literally nobody, except the 300 Tory Members of Parliament who voted for it, wants.

Mr. Freeman: By leave of the House, I shall seek to respond to the questions that have been addressed to me.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), opening the debate for the Opposition, raised two points for response. He referred to the possibility that members of the British Transport police would have to carry in their backpack an index to all the various agreements being entered into on the new railway system. That is not the case. The core policing responsibilities that will be laid upon all those who are licensed—Railtrack, the train operators, those who operate light maintenance depots and those who operate stations—are covered. It is the intention of the police committee to draw up a standard specification of responsibilities of the British Transport police for what are called core services. I read into the record at the beginning of the debate the definition of core police responsibilities. It is clearly sensible that the chief constable be able to refer to a standard, almost boilerplate, set of responsibilities of the police in relation to any part of the railways.
I accept, and have always accepted, the argument that one cannot have different core policing responsibilities for different sections of the railways. That would cause confusion. No doubt the chief constable will ensure that there is a clear standard set of instructions and guidance for all transport police constables in the exercise of their duty.
With regard to non-core activities—and here we are talking at the margin—there may well be certain guarding responsibilities that neither the British Transport police wish to discharge nor rail operators wish to place upon the shoulders of the British Transport police. Core policing activities constitute the vast majority of the responsibilities of the police. Law and order issues throughout the railway system—whether passenger or freight—will be clearly specified and will be standard and consistent as between different licensees.

Mr. Dobson: If all these agreements are to be identical, why do we need lines 28 to 31 at all? They are utterly superfluous. Why do we need to say that a constable will be able to act
in accordance with the terms of that agreement"?
Unless the agreements are going to be different, there is no need to include that line in the Bill. If the agreements are to be identical, the Minister can scrap those four lines, and then we shall be rather more satisfied with the Bill.

Mr. Freeman: There are two reasons why the agreements might vary. The first is the duration of an agreement. If a franchise is to run for seven, 10 or 15 years, that needs to be written into the agreement. Secondly, the charge paid by the user of the British Transport police will vary according to the size of the rail operation. Those two conditions, which have nothing to do with what I call the boilerplate core policing arrangements, will have to be included in an agreement.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras looks incredulous at this explanation, but he should allow me to complete it. I think it important that everyone involved in the running of the new railways should have, set out clearly in an agreement, precise obligations. That is well precedented, and the hon. Member for Crewe and


Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—who also looks incredulous, but who has long experience of the operation of the railways and who will know full well that all the legislation of the past 10 years has included the idea of specific agreements between undertakings and the BTP—will recall that this has been true of light rapid transit and of parts of London Regional Transport. It is certainly important to specify obligations and rights.

Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman has given us two reasons why he wants separate agreements to be brought to bear on a constable going about his duties. The first is that such agreements will be for different lengths of time. Surely at any given moment an agreement will be in place covering a premises or a company: either it will exist, or it will have run out, and the owners will no longer be the owners.
As for the different charges, is the Minister suggesting that the charges might affect the amount of effort put in by a constable or the extent of his jurisdiction? That is blithering nonsense. There is no good reason to keep this part of the Bill.

Mr. Freeman: I have been accused of many things in my time, but never of talking blithering nonsense—

Mr. Mackinlay: You have now.

Mr. Freeman: There is always a first time. It stands to reason that a police services agreement will specify for a franchised train operator or station operator precisely what the obligations in addition to the standard core policing obligations are.

Mr. Cryer: The Minister keeps referring to a standard core obligation on the police. Can he confirm that there is no statutory obligation on any party involved to impose such a core service? If any party to an agreement dissents, then the chief constable will be in no position to override that party. That provides the necessary condition for a wide variety of agreements—it is what the Bill will entail.

Mr. Freeman: Not so—the police committee appointed by the board of British Rail will be responsible for drawing up a precise definition of the core policing responsibility of the BTP, and it will be imposed. Indeed, it will be a condition of the licences issued to everyone—apart from those who are exempt—running the railway. A preserved railway would be a good example of such exemption. The rail operator does not have the option whether to accept the remit of the BTP: it will be imposed on him. As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the Railways Act every operator requires a licence. The police committee determines the core policing arrangements, and the chief constable sits on that committee.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that the Minister understands that the real problem is that the House suspects that the implication of his reiteration of the phrase "core policing" is that he envisages two levels of policing. He may brush that aside by claiming that in some instances guarding can be done by security men, but the fact remains that, once the House suspects that he is introducing a two-tier system of policing, we will have grave doubts about whether the British Transport police will remain the same or whether they are to become an ever smaller part of a different system in which their duties will, perforce, be changed.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady may not have heard my speech at the beginning of the debate in which I defined core policing responsibilities. Those responsibilities are very broad. I offer two examples of activities in which the British Transport Police themselves might not be interested in engaging. After all, the chief constable wants to use his constables in the most effective possible way. The first example is guarding cash or other items of great value when they move, say, from a ticket office to a bank. I should have thought that a private sector security firm would be better able to provide that service. If the hon. Lady doubts that, she should talk to the chief constable who, like any other sensible chief constable, needs to use his limited manpower to the best possible effect.
A second example might be the guarding of a free-standing freight facility or yard—that is not a job for policemen, whose job is to ensure that law and order are preserved on the railway and that terrorists are defeated. I really do not think that the difference between core and non-core functions is relevant; nor is the hon. Lady's concern shared by the chief constable.

Mr. Dobson: Would the Minister apply the description "free-standing freight yard" to any of the Euro-terminals that he proposes?

Mr. Freeman: I did not say yard, I said facility, by which I meant a depot. It is not the job of a policeman on static guard to make sure that a facility is not broken into. If the chief constable and the police committee want to give an independent operator the flexibility to provide such a service, that is only sensible.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) asked me two questions. I can assure him, first, that light maintenance depots will be covered because they must be licensed. He asked also whether pre-emptive responsibilities could be placed on the BTP for dealing with people coming from outwith the rail estate on to a railway. The answer is yes; the Bill provides the appropriate jurisdiction for that.

Mr. Harvey: To return to the Minister's earlier point, how long an agreement may last or how much it will cost are points of no relevance to the jurisdiction of the police carrying out an investigation. Coming closer to the nub of the argument, however, about core services and services which might, in some circumstances, be carried out by a private contractor, I suggest that the idea advanced by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—that police officers would need a manual about their person to tell them whether private contracts with security firms were in place—will turn out to be true after all.
We are talking about the jurisdiction of the police, in which context those four lines of the Bill seem excessive. We do not want to insist on the BTP duplicating activities carried out by private security firms, but surely we need to give them the right, in the heat of a chase or of apprehending someone, to enter an area that may be patrolled by a private security firm.

Mr. Freeman: Of course the police have that jurisdiction—that is the whole purpose of the Bill. If a criminal leaves the vicinity of a railway station or freight yard, and absconds to some other facility that may be guarded by a private security firm, the British Transport police will have full jurisdiction to enter that property. That is the position and we want it to continue after 1 April.
The hon. Member for North Devon foresees the problem that a policeman will not know whether he has responsibility. That problem already exists for police forces. I assure him that the question of jurisdiction will not arise. If a policeman pursues a criminal or suspicious individual to property anywhere in England and Wales, he will have complete jurisdiction.

Mr. Dobson: In that case, why does the Minister need those four lines in the Bill? That is the reason why we are puzzled. All that we need are the provisions in the earlier part of the proposed subsection. We do not need the exclusion proposals. Does the Minister accept that those four lines crib, cabin and confine constables' jurisdiction? He must accept that they potentially reduce jurisdiction, which will cause confusion and a conflict may arise. The Minister says that there will be core policing and that non-core policing may be undertaken by others. That is of relevance to the terms of the agreement. How will constables know whether what they are doing is within those terms? The Minister has accepted that they may differ.

Mr. Freeman: The chief constable is satisfied that he can issue instructions to his force which are consistent with the Bill's provisions. All constables will know precisely what their core policing responsibilities are and what their jurisdiction will be. The purpose of the Bill is to avoid any possible confusion.
There are two reasons why we need the provisions in those four lines. A precedent has been set in the past 10 years—and perhaps in the years before—that it is important for the undertakings of London Regional Transport, the docklands light railway or companies operating a franchise to include a formal agreement. The companies involved have a responsibility to pay the employer of the British Transport police for their services. That is the position for non-railway services. It is also agreed that the British Transport police should have on file a formal understanding of their responsibilities.
Although the core policing responsibilities will not change, other factors will vary from one user to the next. I have already given two examples of where there might be change. A third example might be that the individual franchisee might be involved in other non-railway undertakings. The British Transport police do not have jurisdiction to deal with crimes committed outside the railway network, which having-nothing to do with it.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does that not emphasise the fact that the Committee stage should be separate from today's proceedings so that those matters can be examined properly outside the House and in Committee?
A British Transport police officer may be operating within the curtilage of the British Airports Authority and Heathrow airport, but just outside the curtilage of London Underground. Unless we take the opportunity to introduce a change today, that officer will not have the opportunity to exercise his powers as a constable. That is an absurdity. I have already given the examples of St. Stephen's entrance and the Trafalgar square riot. There is a void in police powers, which we should take this opportunity to remedy. Heathrow airport is another example of an interface in the region policed by London Underground and the Metropolitan police, where a British Transport police

officer could be on wrong side of the line and thus be unable to fulfil his or her duty as a constable, as expected by the public.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the wider issue of the jurisdiction of British Transport police constables. If an officer happens, in uniform, to be travelling from his home to his police station and a crime is committed that has no connection with the railway, he does not have jurisdiction. The hon. Gentleman knows that. That is a sensible issue for debate, but it should not be discussed during the debate on this Bill and it was not an appropriate subject for discussion during the debates on the Railways Act 1993. I shall be happy to debate the subject in due course, but we need first to continue our discussions with the Home Office and with other home police forces, through the Home Office, to identify what reforms are needed. That subject is not connected with the Bill or with the Railways Act.
I acknowledge that it is a subject about which the British Transport Police Federation and British Transport police chief constable are concerned. The hon. Gentleman referred to a letter that I wrote to him in September 1993. It dealt with that wider jurisdictional matter and not with the lacuna, which was discovered much later, in the jurisdiction of British Transport police constables pursuing crimes committed on the railway.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) asked me who the employer is. The employer now and after 1 April is the British Railways Board, not Railtrack. That situation will not change until there is fresh primary legislation, and the debate on that legislation will be the time and place to discuss the matter. Railtrack will be an important user of British Transport policemen, but not the employer.
I pay tribute to the achievements of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who spoke earlier. I have been in my job for four years and he has badgered me consistently about British Transport police issues and has brought officers of the British Transport Police Federation to my office on a dozen occasions. Accompanied by my hon. Friend, I have visited the federation's annual general meetings on several occasions and I shall be attending its conference with him this Wednesday. He has been exceptionally diligent in pursuing the BTP's interests.

Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Freeman: No.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) raised a number of issues. The first dealt with the wider jurisdictional point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands the Government view that that is a separate issue, which needs to be addressed separately. He cited the example of an offence being committed on a bridge owned by the highway authority or by a private sector company above a railway line. In that situation, there is no question of the jurisdiction of the British Transport police being clouded or restricted. They have jurisdiction to arrest and pursue those who are affecting the safety of passengers using the railway.
In his winding-up speech, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) asked a number of questions and I shall seek to answer them concisely. All those operators who have to have a licence are required to include a provision that there should be a police services


agreement. Every aspect of the operation of the railways—where they are open for public transportation of passengers and freight—must be licensed. I cited the only example that I could—the preserved railways. Some other public sector transport undertakings—for example, London Regional Transport and the docklands light railway—are covered separately. The practical effect of the legislation is universal.
I confirm what I said in opening the debate. European passenger services will be included in the proposals because they will have to be licensed. We shall deal with the new channel tunnel rail link separately in a Bill which I hope will be presented later this year. I confirm that what I said about the Heathrow express was correct. If it runs on Railtrack, it will have to be licensed.

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the Minister. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), I picked up the Minister's last phrase. I asked him whether the Bill's provisions on licensing cross-referred to the Railways Class and Miscellaneous Exemptions Order 1994. From what he said, it appears that they do. I think that the Minister is nodding. That raises many interesting questions on which the Minister should give us more information.
I am conscious of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish to make a lengthy intervention.
Under the heading "Licence exemptions", paragraphs 3 and 4 set out a list running from "a" to "u"—about 22, at the last count. Most, or at least many, are small items which could easily be passed by; item "1", however, states that exemption will apply to
any network, station or light maintenance depot comprised in the Channel Tunnel system".
We need a brief explanation of that from the Minister. Indeed, I think that we should have a brief explanation of everything in items "a" to "u".

Mr. Freeman: Anything involving the construction of the new channel tunnel rail link will be the subject of separate legislation. To the extent that passenger and freight services use the existing channel tunnel, they will be covered.

Mr. Wilson: The word "link" is not used; the phrase used is
any network, station or light maintenance depot comprised in the Channel Tunnel system".
The words "system" and "link" are not synonymous, as the Minister well knows.
If the Opposition had not raised the list of exemptions, the Minister would not have told us about it. He did not intend to tell us about elements of the railway which will not require licensing and will therefore not be required to enter into agreements with the British Transport police. I find that pretty shocking.

Mr. Freeman: I have made the position quite clear. [Interruption.] I have repeated what I said earlier, also very clearly.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North also asked about three other important issues. First, he asked about the police committee. The committee is appointed by the board; that has not changed, and will not change. Secondly, he asked who determines the charges. They will be determined by the board, and collected by it; if there is default, the operator is in default of licence conditions.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) asked about the Heathrow link. The Minister said that it would be covered by the Bill in so far as it was running on Railtrack. I understand that the part nearest to the airport will not run on Railtrack, but will use a bit of track that it will own. Does that mean that that part of the link will be under a separate and distinct jurisdiction? If so, that will be the vulnerable bit of the system that terrorists would use to obtain access to the whole system. As we all know, if the British Transport police do not have full confidence in the whole system, stations will be closed much more frequently—or there will be explosions, and people will be killed and injured.

Mr. Freeman: The link will doubtless fall into the same category as Heathrow airport itself, where the British Airports Authority ensures that there is adequate, full and comprehensive policing.
The police committee, the chairman of the board and the chief constable are content with the arrangements that we have presented today. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Motion made and Question put, That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House:

The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 44.

Division No. 171]
[7.43 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cran, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)



Amess, David
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arbuthnot, James
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dover, Den


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Duncan, Alan


Atkins, Robert
Elletson, Harold


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fabricant, Michael


Bates, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
French, Douglas


Booth, Hartley
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Garnier, Edward


Bowden, Andrew
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowis, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butler, Peter
Hague, William


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Chapman, Sydney
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Hendry, Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Congdon, David
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew






Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sims, Roger


Kirkhope, Timothy
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knapman, Roger
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spink, Dr Robert


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Spring, Richard


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Legg, Barry
Stern, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Streeter, Gary


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sweeney, Walter


Lidington, David
Sykes, John


Lightbown, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Thomason, Roy


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


MacKay, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maclennan, Robert
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


McLoughlin, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Malone, Gerald
Tracey, Richard


Mans, Keith
Trotter, Neville


Marlow, Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Merchant, Piers
Viggers, Peter


Mills, Iain
Waller, Gary


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Monro, Sir Hector
Waterson, Nigel


Moss, Malcolm
Watts, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Whitney, Ray


Nicholls, Patrick
Whittingdale, John


Norris, Steve
Widdecombe, Ann


Oppenheim, Phillip
Willetts, David


Ottaway, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Page, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Patnick, Irvine
Wood, Timothy


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Yeo, Tim


Pawsey, James
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Pickles, Eric



Porter, David (Waveney)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Richards, Rod
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and Mr. Michael Brown.


Riddick, Graham





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Bayley, Hugh
Mandelson, Peter


Chisholm, Malcolm
Michael, Alun


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Mudie, George


Cummings, John
O'Hara, Edward


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Olner, William


Davidson, Ian
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Patchett, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Redmond, Martin


Denham, John
Rendel, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Rooney, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Flynn, Paul
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Don (Bath)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


George, Bruce
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Gordon, Mildred
Tyler, Paul


Gunnell, John
Wareing, Robert N


Hall, Mike
Wicks, Malcolm


Hanson, David



Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jamieson, David
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Due to the extraordinary speed at which the Bill is being considered—its First Reading was only last Friday—there has not, in my submission, been reasonable time to scrutinise it. We explored that issue on Second Reading.
I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means did not select my starred amendments. Because of the rapid consideration of the Bill, I was denied an opportunity at least to have an informal interview with the Chairman of Ways and Means and/or yourself, Dame Janet, to make the case that my amendments fall within the terms of the Bill.
It is grossly unfair to me and to other hon. Members that amendment No. 2 and new clause 1 in my name should not be debated in Committee, as they are within the rules of the House and relevant to the Bill. Amendement No. 2 relates to matters that were the subject of extensive debate on Second Reading. If passed, it would clarify the powers and jurisdiction of police officers, but I cannot even present it to the Committee. I make no criticism of the Chair but of the unreasonable manner in which the Bill is being pushed through the House. The jurisdiction of the British Transport police goes to the heart of amendment No. 2 and should be considered.
New clause 1 is important. I would not lie awake at night worrying if it were not debated but for the fact that it concerns an important point of principle. If new clause 1 is debated and accepted by the Committee, it will clarify the jurisdiction of the police officers in question—that is, that they are British Railways police officers.
As the Bill has been botched by the Executive—there is no adequate description of those officers in their title—I hope that you, Dame Janet, agree that there should be discrimination in my favour to allow me to present my amendments to the Committee and that it should be for the Minister to argue why they are inappropriate, if he sees fit.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Amendment No. 2 goes beyond the scope of the Bill and it is therefore out of order and cannot be debated.
New clause 1 was not selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is not the practice for the Chairman to give reasons in Committee.

Clause 1

AMENDMENT OF THE BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ACT 1949

Mr. Mackinlay: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out
', in its application to England and Wales,'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 4, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'throughout England and Wales'.
No. 3, in clause 2, page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (5).

8 pm

Mr. Mackinlay: It would appear that the draftsmen have forgotten about the Kingdom of Scotland in this matter, and that there is a disparity in the treatment of powers being made available to British Transport police officers in England and Wales as distinct from those in Scotland. It seems to me, particularly as the Bill is remedying a profound mistake by the Government, that


there should be clarity and precision, and that there should be uniformity of precision in one Act of Parliament relating to British Transport police officers, wherever they are in the United Kingdom.
In clause 1, and throughout the Bill, reference is made to England and Wales. From the extent that we have been able to examine the Bill, it would seem that that is an error. The problem, Sir Geoffrey—

Mr. Irvine Patnick: "Sir Geoffrey?"

Mr. Mackinlay: I do not know whether it is possible through the usual good offices to ask the Government Whip to contain himself, but we are trying to deal with a difficult matter. The Minister described it as complex and detailed legislation, and the Government Whip is treating it as a matter of levity. It is inappropriate, Mr. Lofthouse, that it should be dealt with in that way, particularly when the Government have yet to apologise, not just to the House but to the British Transport police, for their error. My amendments are necessary to clarify the position.
The problem that those of us who take an interest in the Bill have is that we have not had an opportunity of doing the necessary homework. I could find only one copy of the primary statute—the British Transport Commission Act 1949—in the Palace of Westminster and that took some discovery late at night on Thursday, before the Bill was published. To the extent that one has been able to do any homework, it looks as though my amendments are appropriate and necessary.
The people from whom I would have sought advice and counsel—those in the British Transport Police Federation—did not receive the Bill from the Government. That has not been explained by the Minister. As I said in the debate on Second Reading, the federation received a copy of the Bill from me yesterday. The Minister referred on Second Reading to the views and support of the chief constable but made no reference to the endorsement of the British Transport Police Federation of the details of the Bill—it wants the principle, as we all do, and we recognise the need for great urgency. He could not do that because he had not sent it a copy of the Bill and, as a further result, I and other hon. Members were not able to consult it. It was extraordinarily difficult to get the advice of the chief constable or his assistants in time.
My amendments would help to clarify the situation. I understand—perhaps the Minister will tell me—that a judgment exists either from a, sheriff in Scotland or the High Court that results in the British Transport police officers in Scotland having the wider jurisdiction powers that we discussed on Second Reading. For example, if a British Transport police officer outside Waverley station in Edinburgh saw an incident that required the attendance and stewardship of a police officer, that officer, operating not within the curtilage of a railway station but in a street close to the station, would be able to respond, but that is not the position in a comparable situation in London.
I understand that that power exists by virtue of a judge's decision, and very wise and prudent that judge was. It seems to me that it is necessary for the Bill, first, to put on the statute book the view and opinion of the learned Scottish judge and, secondly, to ensure that those powers that have been enjoyed by British Transport police officers in Scotland are enjoyed throughout the United Kingdom. I believe that that is what my amendments would do.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I wish to raise one narrow point on which I would appreciate my right hon. Friend's advice. I am sure that we all appreciate very much the careful attention that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has given the Bill, but I raise one tiny point about the word "throughout". I wonder whether it applies to private as well as public premises and, if the British Transport police were to provide, for example, a service within private premises, whether the proposed legislation would apply.
My particular interest is the Port of London Police Federation, to which I have been an adviser for many years. As my right hon. Friend is aware, it is a small police force. Because of the privatisation of the ports, its position has changed rather dramatically. It has full chief constables but, following privatisation, their relative pay and conditions have been adversely affected. That has happened not because of privatisation but as one of the inevitable consequences. Their numbers are small indeed.

Mr. Wilson: What is an inevitable consequence of privatisation that is not caused by privatisation?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if, like me, he had paid careful attention to the whole issue, on which the my right hon. Friend the Minister has shown great sympathy and understanding, he would appreciate that those snap judgments are not correct.
My point is this. Because of the age of the Port of London police force, consideration is being given to its future. One of the possibilities would be for it to merge with the British Transport police, because that would provide a continuing career structure. Part of the port of London is located in the constituency of the hon. Member for Thurrock, and he takes a great interest in the British Transport police and in all activities of the ports.
If there were to be such a change, and if the Port of London police came under the jurisdiction of the British Transport police, would the new subsection (1A)(3) apply to the Port of London police? It would be sad from the point of view of administration if we passed this exciting new Bill in a hurry only to find that by so doing we prevented the Port of London police even being considered for a merger with the British Transport police.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has always shown great sympathy and understanding for the problems of south-east England and particularly for Essex. I know that the hon. Member for Thurrock, who also takes an interest in the Fenchurch Street line, appreciates very much, although I am sure that he deplores Government policies, the interest that my right hon. Friend always takes in our affairs. The Port of London police are a fine body of constables, who have served the port well and wisely. I hope that my right hon. Friend can give me the assurance that, in the event of the Port of London police merging with the British Transport police, they will be allowed to carry on with their duties under the Bill. That is a small and narrow point, but I am sure that the draftsmen who assist the Minister will have thought about it. If my right hon. Friend can say that all would be well, I would be more than grateful.

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) for raising the issue of the Port of London Police Federation. I have not met any of those responsible for the discharge of those important functions, but would be glad to pursue the matter


that my hon. Friend has raised. I am bound to say that administrative merger is one thing and difference in jurisdiction is another. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is important to have proper legal advice on the point. In any case, this is not the right Bill to deal with that particular point, important as it is. I accept what he has said and give him an undertaking that I will pursue it and will write to him initially. If it is appropriate to have meetings with the representatives of the Port of London Police Federation, that will be done.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised a perfectly sensible point: why not simply extend the Scottish provisions to England and Wales? That is a different debate. As I have said, it is a sensible point to raise. First, however, the hon. Gentleman should appreciate that my references to what was complex and detailed referred not to the Bill but to the compendium of law since 1949, which for the layman is fiendishly complicated. The 1949 legislation has been amended by many Governments on many different occasions. It is important to trace through the changes in the powers of the police and their jurisdiction from one Act to an amending Act.

Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister has flagged up his excuse if the Bill is proved subsequently to be botched. The Bill could receive Royal Assent, only for us to find that it, too, is in error. It seems that the Minister is lining up his built-in excuse for getting things wrong again.

Mr. Freeman: That is not so. No Labour or Conservative Minister since the war has ever been able to give an assurance that complex legislation stemming from the 1945 to 1951 Parliament would be 100 per cent. right. Ministers make mistakes and Governments make mistakes. Sometimes there is an error of omission, sometimes one of commission. We try to get legislation right. Before the Bill receives Royal Assent I shall introduce the hon. Gentleman, if he would like, to the Parliamentary Counsel. He is a skilled lawyer who takes a great deal of pain and trouble when drafting any legislation. He is responsible not for policy but for translating the policy objectives of Ministers into legislation.
The hon. Member for Thurrock raised several important issues. Scottish law has been different from English and Welsh law in relation to the powers of the BTP for 14 years. The Scottish provisions became law in 1980 and the English provisions, which date back to the 1949 Act, as amended on many different occasions, have provided a different set of laws. I am not aware of any problems having been raised with me over the past few years about difficulties arising as a result of the two different sets of laws. As in many different sectors, there are two distinct sets of legal jurisdiction. That is something that goes beyond the BTP.
A problem has arisen specifically in relation to England and Wales, not Scotland. That has happened for reasons that I have described. Everyone who has participated in the debate understands that. The legal advice available to us, as I am sure to all others involved, was that the defect in England and Wales had to be put right. As I have said, there was no defect in the law relating to Scotland. It is the defect in English and Welsh legislation that we are seeking to correct.
The hon. Member for Thurrock raised the separate issue of why we should have different laws in Scotland than in England and Wales. That is a legitimate topic of debate. We were asked through the Bill to deal with a specific problem that had arisen in England and Wales as a result of the Railways Act 1993 in terms of its implications for the 1949 legislation, and we are doing so. We are not seeking to widen the jurisdiction of the BTP or to ensure that English and Scottish laws are the same in every aspect of life within our society. We are correcting an anomaly.
On that basis, I cannot commend the amendment to the Committee. I say that in no partisan spirit. I have explained that there is an urgent need for legislation to address a specific problem. I hope that the Bill commands the support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber and of those in another place. With that brief explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept what I have said in good faith.

Mr. Wilson: I do not want to prolong our debates. There is no point in covering the same ground again. The Opposition's position is as follows: if we are to have legislation that deals specifically with the British Transport police and if there is a consensus that the present legislation in Scotland is more effective than that which hitherto has pertained in England and Wales, why not use the opportunity to establish the same powers throughout the whole of the country? That would achieve the consistency that we are looking for and secure a more effective British Transport police.
That is no ideology. There is no rule in the book stating that, because the primary purpose of a Bill is to remedy a defect in other legislation, we cannot take the opportunity to improve upon the status quo ante. I do not understand the Government's difficulty unless they are reluctant to extend the powers of the BTP in a logical way that is in line with the Scottish system. They cannot say that the Scottish system is less efficient than the one that pertains in England and Wales because everyone agrees that it is not.
The BTP in England and Wales work within the same powers as their counterparts in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and I well know, we are all part of the same United Kingdom. Why should we not have the same BTP operating under the same rules? It is a simple question that the Minister has signally failed to answer except in the narrowest theological terms. He has said that the Bill is meant to do only A and that it would be some sort of crime against the constitution for it to do B and thus make it better.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 54, Noes 151.

Division No. 172]
[8.16 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Harry
Dobson, Frank


Bayley, Hugh
Eastham, Ken


Benton, Joe
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
George, Bruce


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Gunnell, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hall, Mike


Clapham, Michael
Hanson, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Harvey, Nick


Cummings, John
Jamieson, David






Lewis, Terry
Prescott, John


McCartney, Ian
Raynsford, Nick


McFall, John
Redmond, Martin


Maclennan, Robert
Rendel, David


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Miller, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


Morley, Elliot
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mudie, George
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Olner, William
Tyler, Paul


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wicks, Malcolm


Patchett, Terry
Wilson, Brian


Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Mr. Bob Cryer.


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Heald, Oliver


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Hendry, Charles


Amess, David
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Arbuthnot, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Hunter, Andrew


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Bates, Michael
Jenkin, Bernard


Batiste, Spencer
Jessel, Toby


Bellingham, Henry
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Booth, Hartley
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Boswell, Tim
Key, Robert


Bowden, Andrew
Kilfedder, Sir James


Bowis, John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Brandreth, Gyles
Knapman, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Bright, Graham
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Burns, Simon
Legg, Barry


Butler, Peter
Lidington, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lightbown, David


Carttiss, Michael
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Chapman, Sydney
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clappison, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
MacKay, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Congdon, David
Mans, Keith


Conway, Derek
Marlow, Tony


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Merchant, Piers


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Mills, Iain


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dover, Den
Moss, Malcolm


Duncan, Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Elletson, Harold
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Nicholls, Patrick


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Norris, Steve


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Ottaway, Richard


Faber, David
Paice, James


Fabricant, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Pawsey, James


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Richards, Rod


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Riddick, Graham


French, Douglas
Robathan, Andrew


Gallie, Phil
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Garnier, Edward
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gillan, Cheryl
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Sackville, Tom


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Shersby, Michael


Grylls, Sir Michael
Sims, Roger


Hague, William
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Soames, Nicholas


Hannam, Sir John
Spencer, Sir Derek


Harris, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Haselhurst, Alan
Spring, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Hawksley, Warren
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John





Stern, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Streeter, Gary
Waterson, Nigel


Sweeney, Walter
Watts, John


Sykes, John
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thomason, Roy
Willetts, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Yeo, Tim


Tracey, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trotter, Neville



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Viggers, Peter



Waller, Gary

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Dobson: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 31, to leave out from 'elsewhere' in line 21 to the end of line 31 and insert—
'but only for the purposes of—

(i) carrying out investigations; and

(ii) arresting any person—

(aa) whom he has followed from, or from the vicinity of, any such premises, in circumstances where that person could have been arrested in, on, or in the vicinity of, such premises; or
(bb) who is in possession of goods or money which the constable reasonably believes to have been stolen from or from the vicinity of, any such premises or from the custody of the transport police.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we will consider amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 2.

Mr. Dobson: When I originally suggested that the Government should bring forward a one-clause Bill to correct their own grotesque error which had left the British Transport police without proper jurisdiction from 1 April, I had hoped that, on the basis of once bitten twice shy, the Government would put forward a one-clause Bill which would do the job that the British Transport police, British Rail and the British Transport Police Federation all want it to do. The trouble is that the Government do not seem to have done that.
We are told—but we have no objective evidence to this effect—that the chief constable is satisfied with the proposition that is before us, but we think it is quite unsatisfactory. During the Second Reading debate we raised the question of the need for the four lines at the bottom of page 1 of the Bill which would restrict the powers of a constable as being lawful only when he was acting in accordance with the terms of the agreement with one of the privatised operators.
The Minister has put forward a number of what can only be described as quite preposterous justifications for this proposition. For instance, he said that one of the reasons for the clause was that, although some of the provisions of the agreements would be universal, they might cover different periods for different companies. We will try to deal with that one. If there is an agreement in force, whether it lasts for a week or a decade, either it is in operation or it is not. If the agreement is in operation, it might be identical; if it is not in operation, it would not be valid and it would have no bearing on the powers of a constable employed by, or working for, British Transport police.
Another of the Minister's suggestions for his preposterous proposition was that different sums of money


might be involved. The sums of money involved must surely be completely irrelevant to the actions of an individual constable. Either he is doing his job, or he is not. If, as will probably be the case, the Government have managed to drag in a fly-by-night outfit which has not paid its contribution, that will surely be of no consequence. Provided that that outfit is a railway operator for the time being, the constable will have certain duties in relation to its property and its operations. The state of that outfit's accounts and what it is paying are utterly irrelevant to the constable's jurisdiction. Money cannot affect the constable's jurisdiction.
8.30 pm
The Minister came closest to providing a sensible explanation for the provision when he said that some operators might also operate other activities and the constable should not be obliged to act in a policing role in relation to the other activities. I do not understand why a constable should expect to do that. I do not see why the agreement should have to exclude non-railway premises and non-railway functions. Unless they were imported into the agreement in the first place, there would be no reason why a British Transport police constable should have anything to do with such premises or functions.
The Minister may say that there may be circumstances in which part of a depot is devoted to non-railway activities and therefore the constable needs to have jurisdiction there. That may be the case. However, if he needs that jurisdiction, he should have it. It should not be limited by considerations of who owns the premises or what they are used for.
The Minister has come up with no sensible arguments in favour of the four lines at the bottom of page 1 of this two-clause Bill. He has given us no justification for the provisions. The continued presence of those four lines in the Bill could possibly limit the jurisdiction of British Transport police constables. It is clear from the letter that the Minister was forced to send to the chair of the British Transport police committee that the committee believed that there were problems. If that was not the case, the Minister would not have had to write his letter.
I am not convinced that that committee is convinced that what the Minister is saying is what the committee wants to hear or that it is entirely satisfied with the Minister's current propositions. We have tabled the amendments to delete the four lines which we believe are objectionable, ridiculous and troublesome and which will cause bother for constables who are trying to go about their duties and for the management of BTP when it tries to carry out its proper management tasks.
As I admitted earlier, my detailed formulation of the wording of the amendment may be unsatisfactory. I am quite prepared to accept that. We have suggested that the best way to deal with the matter would be to import into the law for England and Wales the provisions that presently apply in Scotland where everyone accepts that the system currently works well. The Minister will have to accept that the restrictions on the powers of the constable set out in the last four lines of the Bill will not apply in Scotland. Constables in Scotland will not have to check whether they are acting in accordance with the terms of each individual agreement.
There will be general powers in Scotland, but there will not be untrammelled general powers in England and Wales. That is absurd, particularly as British Transport police officers are not necessarily confined to England and Wales, or to Scotland. British Transport police officers do not recognise any difference at the boundaries. They sometimes travel by car and sometimes by train backwards and forwards across the border. However, their jurisdictions could differ depending on which side of the border they are. That is preposterous and is likely to cause difficulty for constables.
The Minister has presented no sound or solid explanation of why he wants the provision in the Bill. The provision is totally unnecessary. It complicates things and makes life difficult for those who must try to operate the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act. It will make life difficult for those who try to protect passengers and goods on the railways and, as we said earlier, it will make life difficult for those who have the very difficult task of trying to ensure that terrorists do not kill or maim people on the railways or manage to close the system down by threatening bomb incidents.
The Minister has failed in his undertaking. When I approached him and told him that I thought that he should present a one-clause Bill, he said that that was what the Government were contemplating. They committed themselves to that in the Lords. However, it should be understood that if the Government say that they are going to introduce a one-clause Bill which will clear up a mess that they created in the first place, it is reasonable for the House to expect them to introduce a one-clause Bill which will not create another mess similar to the one they have created already and which this Bill is supposed to correct.
We are giving the Minister an opportunity to accept our amendments or the spirit of the amendments. It would be no criticism of the Minister if he were to say that he was prepared to consider them and come back with amendments in the other place to deal with the very reasonable points that we have raised. My hon. Friends and I, and the representative of the Liberal Democrat party, the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), have acted throughout with the intention of trying to get the law back on the rails, to correct the Government's errors and to ensure that, from 1 April, the law is effective.
We have behaved throughout with utter responsibility and a concern for the safety of passengers and British Transport police officers. We do not believe that the Government have responded in kind to our propositions. They have not introduced a Bill that does the trick. Either amendment or both amendments would massively improve the Bill. The principle behind them would result in a great improvement. In particular, amendment No. 1 would bring the law in England and Wales into line with the law in Scotland which everyone accepts is satisfactory and which is in no way restricted by a clause or provision like the last four lines of page 1 of the Bill.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I spent a great deal of time last Session on the Floor of the House and also in Committee in the debates on the Railways Bill. We had 35 sittings in Committee which included many hours of debate on the future role of the British Transport police.
The Minister has been asked tonight—and we have not had a satisfactory answer from him—why, throughout those lengthy debates, the Government did not manage to get it right. They bungled not just the clause on the BTP,



but their definition of the BTP's remit, role and powers. They are in danger of doing the same again with the Bill. My hon. Friends have tabled an amendment that would clarify the powers of the British Transport police. Those powers were ably set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
The Committee on the Railways Bill debated the provisions relating to the British Transport police in the light of a consultative document which the Department of Transport issued on the future of the British Transport police. That document was issued in November 1992. There was very little time for people to comment because the closing date for consultation was 16 December 1992. I hope that the Minister can tell us how many responses the Department of Transport received to that consultation paper. Does he believe that adequate time was given to enable those who wished to make a response to do so? If there was adequate time for those with an interest in the affairs of the British Transport police to consult and respond to the Government's proposals, why was the problem that we are discussing in Committee tonight missed?
After the debates last year, which followed a consultation period on a Government document, and which took place over a longer period in Committee on the Railways Bill than we have in this rushed Committee of the whole House on this Bill, can the Minister assure us that what he is now proposing is foolproof and that the Government will not have to come back with further changes?
The amendment in the name of my hon. Friends seeks to define the powers of the police as that of investigation—the seeking of evidence and interviewing suspects or witnesses—and/or that of arrest in certain specified circumstances. It is suggested that the BTP should have those powers away from the premises of British Rail, its subsidiaries, and the rail operators who engage the services of the BTP. The Minister's definition in the Bill as drafted is wider. It says that British Transport police officers would have powers with regard to
matters connected with or affecting the British Railways Board
and the other bodies concerned.
Can the Minister tell the Committee what precisely is meant by the words "matters connected with or affecting"? If the scope of the powers in the Bill is wider than the scope proposed in the amendment—that is, the power of investigation, the collecting of evidence, and the power of arrest—we should know what those powers are. If the powers in the Bill are not wider than those proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, we should have the simple and clear definition proposed by my hon. Friend. I hope that the Committee will support his amendment.
I trust that the Minister will respond also to the issue of the supervision of the British Transport police. That supervision will be in the hands of the police committee. Can the Minister tell us who the members of the committee will be and how they will define the words "connected with or affecting"? Unless we know how the committee will define the policy of the British Transport police, we will not know the remit and range of their powers away from railway premises.
8.45 pm
All hon. Members want to ensure that the British Transport police have the powers that they need to do their job of protecting law and order, protecting passengers, and protecting the property of railway operators. Those powers should be defined in the Bill. However, I do not believe that they are clearly defined at present. My hon. Friend makes a better job of that definition in his amendment.
During the long Committee sittings on the Railways Bill, it became clear on several occasions that the Government were simply making up railway privatisation as they went along. They were unclear on how to put into practice their objective of privatising the railways. Clause after clause was brought to the Committee and included in the Railways Bill. Clauses were then withdrawn and we were told that different clauses would be introduced. That Committee was an arena for debate in which there were days, weeks and months to reflect, go back to the draftsmen and re-examine the provisions of the Bill in the light of debate and questions raised, but still a serious error was made.
Tonight, a new Bill is presented to us as something that we must debate and finish in a single evening. It is not as though the faults in the original Bill suddenly came to light on Wednesday or Thursday last week. There is absolutely no reason why the Minister could not have published his Bill weeks ago—I do not want to repeat the Second Reading debate—so that hon. Members who wished to examine and probe whether the Government had got it right this time could table amendments or seek to see the Minister to express reservations. I should like the Minister to explain why those opportunities have not been provided. I suspect that the reason why they have not been provided is that the Government are deeply embarrassed at having botched the Railways Bill and that they want to hide their embarrassment with the shortest possible debate.
Filling the holes in the Railways Bill is rather like trying to refloat the Titanic. The Government introduced today's Bill to block some of the holes and mistakes in the original Bill. As the consequences of rail privatisation go ahead, I am absolutely convinced that this will be the first of many Bills that the Government will have to introduce desperately to make the unworkable work and make rail privatisation happen in a way that will improve services to the travelling public. Frankly, the Government will not be successful because rail privatisation will not improve services for the public. The whole endeavour is fatally flawed.

Mr. Trotter: It may be helpful to remind the Committee of the scope of activity of the British Transport police when considering their powers. The British Transport police deal not only with matters that obviously relate to the police; they deal with a very wide range of matters, similar to any Home Office force. They deal with murder, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, firearms and explosives—reference has already been made to that—rape, robbery, booking office frauds, thefts, thefts of motor vehicles, thousands of cases of fraud relating mostly to tickets, arson, damage to motor vehicles, numerous incidents involving endangering the safety of the public on the railways and public order offences. They deal with a total of some 78,000 or 80,000 offences a year, which is some 200 plus a day. Obviously, the scope of the force is very wide.
Can my right hon. Friend give the Committee the assurance that he has given to me privately, which is that the force will continue to have all the powers that it needs to deal with that wide ramification of crime from murder at the top to graffiti at the bottom, if I may put it that way? Can he give an assurance that the force will retain the adequate powers that it has at present to deal with such incidents?

Mr. Harvey: Earlier, the Minister said that the responsibility of the British Transport police will differ in various parts of the railways network. That is why there would be a variety of agreements. Everybody accepts that, however, we are discussing not the responsibilities of the British Transport police, but its jurisdiction.
Any curb on that jurisdiction is a risk or a gamble. A number of hon. Members have given today various hypothetical examples of where the limits to the transport police's jurisdiction might have unforeseen and calamitous consequences, in that a villain could get away in various situations.
The only argument which the Minister has made which appears to have any logic as to why jurisdiction should be limited in this way is that some of the private railway companies might have other interests which are not related to railways over which they would not want the transport police to have jurisdiction. That being so, surely the way to address that is to amend line 25 in another place to specify that it is simply the railway interests of the companies which would be covered.
In my view, any limit to jurisdiction is a gamble. The burden of proof is therefore on the side of whoever wishes to curtail that jurisdiction. If it is curtailed in an unfortunate way and there are disastrous consequences, it will be on the Minister's shoulders. The burden of proof is with him, and I have yet to hear any reason as to why the limit to jurisdiction in those four lines should be imposed.

Mr. Cryer: It would be helpful if the Minister were to give a good reason why the amendment should be rejected. It is a serious attempt to clarify the position and to place it—as lawyers say—beyond peradventure that the British Transport police, or the British Railways Board police as it will be under the combined Acts, are not placed in jeopardy because they are not sure of their jurisdiction. That is the essence of the argument.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) asked for an assurance that a wide range of powers which the transport police currently undertake are not to be affected in any way by the legislation. I ask the Minister whether they would be affected in any way by amendment No. 1. which we are considering together with amendment No. 6. The range of powers given there to allow the railway police to act elsewhere other than on railway premises would cover the range of offences which the hon. Gentleman has outlined.
I cannot see that the phrases put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) would in any way inhibit that, so it would improve the Bill. There is no question but that there is a limitation placed in line 30 of the Bill that the constable can act only

in accordance with the terms of that agreement.
That refers to the service agreement between the British Railways Board and police, and it implies that there is a potential limitation.
The Minister said that the agreements would vary by duration. Obviously, once an agreement has expired, a constable will no longer have jurisdiction. If an organisation were no longer employing the British Transport police, there would be no jurisdiction. That is only one example.
The Minister, for instance, mentioned the amount of money involved. I cannot understand how that would affect the component which the Minister emphasised—the jurisdiction of the railway police which is to be built into every licence to every franchisee. However, if money is to affect the matter, that would surely mean that the range of services which the police will offer will be more costly the wider the range. Inevitably, that means the jurisdiction of the police, because the services it offers for sale are police services.
If money is to be greater for a given range of services, inevitably more services will be involved and therefore the jurisdiction of the agreement will be wider. One set of policemen will operate under one agreement, and they will have wider jurisdiction on particular premises subject to that agreement than policemen who are operating on other premises and subject to a different agreement.
Ministers have claimed that the chief constables' "code of conduct" will be imposed on every licence which, the Minister claims, is a safeguard. We need to ask questions about that. There will be lots of agreements, and operators will be changing. As one operator goes into liquidation, another comes in and takes over the franchise. There will be many changes.
The Department of Transport, as I recall, claimed at the time the Bill was being debated that as many as 14,000 contracts—not all covering the police—would be involved in setting up this crazy pack of cards which the demented right-wingers are seeking to impose on an unwilling nation. That is all right in the sense that it will hasten their electoral doom at the next general election. However, we must suffer the crazy and demented ravings of the reich which is currently operating in the Government offices in Whitehall. The right-wing loonies have control.
The Opposition oppose the Bill in Parliament and in principle, and we have now to try to make it work as effectively as we can in the short term. Hopefully, there will not be many aspects of the Railways Act 1993 which will be put into operation because of the shortage of time between April and the next general election.
Nonetheless, we all enunciated an important point at Second Reading about the protection of the public from entry on to the railways and the protection of people on the railways from vandalism and, alas, from the terrorist potential which is there daily. Indeed, there was a bomb threat at Orpington station early today. It caused disruption.
All the factors that I have mentioned are ever present. We do not want the British Transport police, as part of the thin blue line against the rising tide of crime that is engulfing the nation under the Conservative Government, to be handicapped. That is why we are raising these points. We want to make sure beyond peradventure that the law is clear.
If legislation has to be tested in the courts, it is poor legislation. We want to make it clear. I should have thought


that the amendment clarified the position. It seeks to leave out the mumbo jumbo about the terms of the agreement. It does not depend on the terms of the agreement. The Minister has told Parliament that as a condition of every licence the chief constable will lay down universal terms and conditions for the operation of the police in relation to the conduct of law and order. Terms and conditions relating to time and money will also be laid down, but they will not affect law and order or the duties of the British Transport police. We would not need to worry about the terms of the agreement if a standard set of terms and conditions were laid out in the Bill.
It is more satisfactory for Parliament to write terms and conditions into the Bill than for it to leave them to some shadowy committee. If the chief constable tells the people who administer the licences that they must incorporate certain terms in the licence, and if there is a plethora of agreements, someone somewhere might just leave out the section that would be so relevant in a subsequent court case and open to challenge. We want to make the law on criminal activities which inhibits the operation of the railway and the safety of passengers and users as clear as we possibly can. I should have thought that the amendment did just that.

Mr. Freeman: I shall first deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I guess that more points will be made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) in due course.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras asked why there should be a police services agreement. I have already explained that the Government believe that it is important to formalise the relationship between the British Transport police and the various constituent parts of the railway industry in terms of the precise functions and responsibilities of the police for a certain user. That is not to say that the core police responsibilities will not be the same for each user. Provisions in the agreement will relate to the specifics of a case.
I have already explained that one of the main purposes of the agreement might well be to limit the responsibilities of the police to the railway undertakings involved and not to the other activities of the company. Such an agreement is well precedented, for example, in the London Regional Transport Act 1984 and the Leeds Supertram Act 1993. So I do not understand hon. Members' fears about the use of the agreement. It seems sensible and practical. We seek to deal with a problem that has arisen in England and Wales, but not in Scotland. In Scotland, jurisdiction and limits of jurisdiction are not an issue.

9 pm

Mr. Dobson: Where in any of the precedents that the Minister adduced today or in his letter to the chairman of the police committee does it say that the constable can act only in accordance with the terms of an agreement?

Mr. Freeman: I have already given two examples. If the hon. Gentleman consults the Leeds Supertram Act 1993, he will find that there must be a formal agreement to enshrine responsibility. The Leeds supertram has not opened yet, but there has to be an agreement between British Transport police and that undertaking. The same is true of the London Regional Transport Act 1984. There is nothing unusual about a formal agreement.

Mr. Dobson: I have the Leeds Supertram Act here. There is no suggestion anywhere in the Act or in the other two precedents that the Minister has given—[Interruption.] The Minister is getting a copy of the Act, which will prove that I am telling the truth—that a constable's duties will be trammelled or curtailed by the agreement that is reached. That is the point that we have sought to make to the Minister.

Mr. Freeman: Section 64 of the Leeds Supertram Act 1993 says:
Where agreement under this section is made with the railways board, members of the British Transport Police Force may act in accordance with the terms of the agreement as constables in, on and in the vicinity of any premises of the Executive notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of section 53 (As to appointment of constables) of the British Transport Commission Act 1949.
A similar provision is replicated in schedule 4 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984. The existence of agreements is already precedented.

Mr. Dobson: We all know that there are agreements, but nowhere in any of the legislation that the Minister has quoted is there any suggestion that the specific terms of the agreement limit the powers of a constable.

Mr. Freeman: I shall deal with the limitation of the powers of a constable, which was raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), in a moment. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) asked me two questions. First, he asked me to comment on the phrase,
matters connected with or affecting".
That is drawn from the British Transport Commission Act 1949. The language has proved to be effective ever since. Those words are a broader definition than the practice in Scotland, but they are well proven and tried and tested.
The hon. Member for York asked me who was on the police committee. The police committee is, and will continue to be, appointed by the British Railways Board. It includes, obviously, appointees from the railways. There is an independent member. There is also the chairman of the Central Transport Users Consultative Committee. The order that has been laid before Parliament simply gives the British Railways Board the power to appoint representatives from Railtrack.

Mr. Mackinlay: Oh?

Mr. Freeman: Because Railtrack comprises literally half the railway—the infrastructure. Also, as the name of the Central Transport Users Consultative Committee is changing—although its powers are, if anything, slightly enlarged—the order that is before Parliament now simply refers to the new Central Rail Users Consultative Committee.

Mr. Bayley: Are there proposals to allow private rail operators to appoint members of the police committee? I ask the question because of a statement in the consultation document that the Department of Transport distributed on the future of the British Transport police, which says in paragraph 28:
 "On the other hand, a national police force controlled by private companies and exercising all the powers of Constables might prove unacceptable to public opinion.

Mr. Freeman: There is no suggestion that private franchisees should appoint members of the police committee. [Interruption.] I am able to handle the point, thank you—so far.

Mr. Mackinlay: Another fine mess you have got into!

Mr. Freeman: When I need help, I will ask for it.
There is no question of private sector franchisees appointing themselves or others to the police committee. The police committee is appointed by the British Railways Board. Obviously it would be sensible for the chairman of that board, when in due course he makes new appointments to the police committee, to appoint representatives of franchisees, but there are no franchisees at the moment and there will be none this year. There will be some next year, and at that stage it may be sensible to include representatives, but they are representatives.

Mr. Bayley: rose—

Mr. Freeman: I should like to make progress, if I may.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) asked whether all the various crimes and offences that he described could be encompassed in the jurisdiction envisaged by the Bill. The answer, obviously, is yes. There will be no change to the powers of the British Transport police in relation to the pursuit of offenders, the arrest of offenders and the questioning and interrogation of offenders, if we pass the Bill.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) asked about the jurisdiction covered by a police services agreement. I have indicated—I repeat the point for the sake of clarity—that there may be a need to exclude non-railway businesses which will vary according to the police user. Each police user will have a different set of businesses and undertakings which will therefore have to be specifically described in the agreement if they are to be excluded from the jurisdiction of the police. That has long been the case. The jurisdiction of the British Transport police does not extend beyond the railways.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South asked about the limitations imposed on jurisdiction. There must be an agreement and that will be enforced as a condition of the licence. It will be in a form agreed by the police committee for core policing and any agreement must be approved by the Secretary of State. Those provisions are clear.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South because he has done me a favour. I note from the Order Paper that the hon. Gentleman has an Adjournment debate tabled for this Friday, dealing with Menwyth Hill station. I have to tell him that last week, on learning of that, my civil servants said, "You have to answer that Adjournment debate, Minister."

Mr. Cryer: It shows how much the right hon. Gentleman knows about railways.

Mr. Freeman: The reason why I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman is that my constituency diary was cleared of all engagements. Now they tell me that, having consulted British Rail, even British Rail cannot find Menwyth Hill station. A Defence Minister is to answer, so now I have a completely clear day.

Mr. Dobson: Other railway stations may disappear into the Menwyth triangle before privatisation proceeds far.

Mr. Cryer: The fact that Department of Transport officials believe that Menwyth Hill station is a railway station shows how long they have been dedicated to supporting the road industry.

Mr. Dobson: They are obviously running a ghost train through there.
I feel sorry for the Minister because he has been sent out to put right his and other people's mistakes and finds himself defending the indefensible in trying to put them right. The Opposition accept that a police services agreement is needed between each railway company or undertaking and British Transport police. Nobody disputes the fact that all those organisations other than British Rail have such an agreement now, but we do dispute whether an individual agreement could limit the powers of constables employed by British Transport police. Such limits should not exist.
At the risk of being accused of tedious repetition, I must point out yet again that, if the agreements vary—eventually there may be more than 100—neither the constables nor British Transport police will know whether they have the authority to act in individual circumstances. The Minister has still offered no explanation. The three precedents that he quoted are not relevant as they do not include the words to which we object in the Bill. It would have been better had he not quoted them.
We also asked the Minister to give examples of differences that might exist in those agreements. I shall not go into whether some agreements will run for a longer time than others. Either they exist or they do not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and others pointed out, the financial side of the contract is utterly irrelevant to the work of the constable.
As the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) and I have said, the nearest the Minister has come to giving a sensible justification was when he said that some railway companies might own premises that are not used for railway purposes, so the agreement would need to exclude such premises. It does not need to do that because the clause confines constables to acting
in, on and in the vicinity of any police premises; and … elsewhere, in relation to matters connected with or affecting … a police services user".
They would become a user as a police service. There is no question of the last four lines of page 1 qualifying the fact; it does not need qualifying as it is qualified right from the start.
The Minister has not come up with a sensible explanation or justification for those four lines, which is why we shall call for a Division on the amendment, which would delete those and other words and replace them with the words drawn from the Scottish legislation. Everyone must accept that that legislation works and would not be limited by the words to which we object in the Bill. I cannot understand why the Minister does not see that.
Opposition Members are becoming increasingly suspicious that, yet again, the Government are up to something. We are developing a suspicion that, one way or another, bits of the railway system and more and more policing activities will be excluded from the jurisdiction of the British Transport police. As we said at the beginning of debates on the Bill—which was not very long ago—it is crucial to the safety of passengers and of goods, and, above all, crucial in the fight against the terrorist, that there be no gaps, that we continue to have comprehensive jurisdiction. We do not believe that this one-clause Bill will do the job it was supposed to do and the job that we requested be done. That is why we shall press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 49, Noes 167.

Division No. 173]
[9.15 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry
McFall, John


Bayley, Hugh
Maclennan, Robert


Benton, Joe
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Miller, Andrew


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Morley, Elliot


Clapham, Michael
Mudie, George


Corston, Ms Jean
Olner, William


Cryer, Bob
Pickthall, Colin


Cummings, John
Pike, Peter L.


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davidson, Ian
Redmond, Martin


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Rendel, David


Denham, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Dobson, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Faulds, Andrew
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fyfe, Maria
Tyler, Paul



George, Bruce
Vaz, Keith


Gordon, Mildred
Walley, Joan


Gunnell, John
Wilson, Brian


Hall, Mike



Hanson, David

Tellers for the Ayes:


Harvey, Nick
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Mr. Jim Dowd.


Home Robertson, John



Jamieson, David





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Amess, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Faber, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bates, Michael
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bellingham, Henry
French, Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gallie, Phil


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garnier, Edward


Booth, Hartley
Gillan, Cheryl


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, Andrew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hannam, Sir John


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Butler, Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren


Carrington, Matthew
Heald, Oliver


Carttiss, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Cash, William
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clappison, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Colvin, Michael

Hunter, Andrew


Congdon, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dover, Den
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan, Alan
Kirkhope, Timothy


Eggar, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)





Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Soames, Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spink, Dr Robert


Legg, Barry
Spring, Richard


Lidington, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lightbown, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Steen, Anthony


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


MacKay, Andrew
Sweeney, Walter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sykes, John


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marlow, Tony
Thomason, Roy


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Merchant, Piers
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mills, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Trimble, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Norris, Steve
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)



Page, Richard
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patnick, Irvine
Waterson, Nigel


Pawsey, James
Watts, John


Pickles, Eric
Wells, Bowen


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whittingdale, John


Richards, Rod
Widdecombe, Ann


Riddick, Graham
Willetts, David


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Yeo, Tim


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sackville, Tom



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Sims, Roger



Skeet, Sir Trevor

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Mackinlay: Mr. Mackinlay: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 25, at end insert—"or (iv) London Underground Limited."

The amendment would improve the Bill by adding London Underground Ltd. to clause 1(3). It should be inserted for the sake of clarity. I anticipate that the Minister will say that London Underground is subject to the user agreements. I would welcome that clarification. This a probing amendment, as it seems that London Underground has been forgotten.

I am conscious of the fact that, unlike the other users which have been the subject of earlier discussion, London Underground is represented on the British Transport police committee. It would be appropriate, therefore, for its status to be reflected in the Bill. It is in that spirit that I have moved the amendment.

Mr. Freeman: I shall clarify the matter for the hon. Gentleman. The powers of the British Transport police in relation to London Underground are already covered by the London Regional Transport Act 1984, so there is no need for the amendment. I confirm that the British Railways Board appoints London Underground's managing director, who sits on the British Transport police committee. I am not aware of any proposals to change that. A sufficient number of British Transport policemen deal with the underground to warrant a representative of London Underground on that committee. The arrangements have worked well and I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that the amendment is not necessary.

Mr. Mackinlay: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

AMENDMENT OF THE BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ACT 1949

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Wilson: I want to use this debate to explore the licence exemptions. The way in which information has trickled out tonight shows that the conduct of this Bill has been an affront. Many issues should clearly have been discussed in Committee. There is an awful lot of ground to be covered and many questions to be asked in this House and outside it by the people who will be affected by this legislation.
In something of a departure from his normal style, the Minister refused to answer my earlier questions and peremptorily terminated our discussion of the channel tunnel. As I said, a grave problem has to be settled. Where will the writ of the British Transport police run? Perhaps we can have an action replay of the earlier stages of the debate when I started to probe the Minister on that subject. The hon. Member for North Devon, (Mr. Harvey) also mentioned exemptions. The Minister's replies could not have been more clear cut—exemptions were about the odd steam train here and there. He stated categorically that the tunnel was not covered by exemptions.
I mentioned the relationship between the Bill and SI 606, the Railways (Class and Miscellaneous Exemptions) Order 1994. As far as I can gather from his reply on Second Reading, the Minister confirmed that the list of exemptions of operators who will not require licences contained in that order is relevant to the Bill. In other words, if one does not need a licence and one is therefore listed in the statutory instrument, one will not be covered by the obligation to retain British Transport police. If that is not an accurate summary, the Minister can correct me. If it is, it raises questions of major importance.
The list does not merely cover some trivial group of steam engine operators, but includes some important categories, and it needs at least some explanation to be given to the House. For instance, category (a) includes:
any network, station or light maintenance depot, the operator of which immediately before the coming into force of this article was a person other than—(i) the Board, (ii) a subsidiary of the Board, (iii) London Regional Transport, or (iv) a subsidiary of London Regional Transport".
Category (b) gives a geographical description of a network that is to be exempted from the need for a licence. I am no expert on the geography of London, but the description reads suspiciously like the docklands light railway, or certainly parts of it. Is that the case? The description is of
the railway line running from the junction between Westferry Station and West India Quay Station, through Poplar Station, to the western end of Beckton station in London"—
and so on and so forth. It also lists other stations. Is that the docklands light railway? If so, it is not some old steam engine, run by enthusiasts. On that count, the Minister's answer appears to have been faulty.
Paragraph (1) is perhaps the most interesting. It reads:

any network, station or light maintenance depot comprised in the Channel Tunnel system".
I am advised by the interpretation section that the "Channel Tunnel system" means that system defined in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. That Act contains a lengthy description and it appears that the system includes not only the underwater link between the two countries, but also much infrastructure on this side of the tunnel. For instance, it includes the two terminal areas, the service and maintenance area, the inland clearance depot at Ashford, the necessary links with the road and rail networks and the fixed and movable equipment needed for the operation of the tunnel. Is that the extent of what is to be outside the remit of the British Transport police? That is a straightforward question. Now that we have drawn out the information that the channel tunnel is affected by the legislation, I find the Minister's earlier answer extremely puzzling: I do not know why he said that exemptions had nothing to do with the tunnel, when that is clearly not the case.
Item "m" is also interesting. It refers to
the light maintenance depots listed in Schedule 1".
Schedule 1 of the order lists 63 such depots. They are not trivial; I would guess that they are some of the biggest British Rail depots in the country. Examples are Chester wagon shop, the traction maintenance depot at Crewe, the Eastleigh freight traction maintenance depot and Saltley fuel and maintenance point.
Let me truncate the question, and simply ask how many of those depots which are at present within the ambit of the British Transport police will not be subject to licence—and thus not BTP responsibility—in the future. If the answer is "none", the Minister can give it very quickly, and it will be in line with his earlier answers. If, however, the list includes depots which are currently the responsibility of the British Transport police but which will be exempted from the licence system, that is clearly not consistent with what the Minister told the Committee earlier.
There is a vast chasm of conflicting interpretations. At the beginning of the debate, the Minister told us categorically that exemptions meant steam railways, and similar bits and pieces that were of no account to anyone. The British Transport police, however, believe that as a result of the exemptions they will be excluded from the Heathrow express, the docklands light railway, European passenger services and many other important segments of the railway, and I believe that the hon. Member for North Devon has been told as much. That, as I have said, represents a chasm of misunderstanding—and an eloquent comment on the Government's handling of the matter: as we enter the last minutes of consideration of the Bill, that is the belief held by people outside who will be affected by it.
It would have been much more straightforward of the Minister not to ignore the existence of the list of exemptions, but to try to explain to the Committee its relevance, or lack of relevance. We would then have been given a statement of the position, rather than a dismissal of the idea in the hope—probably—that no one would notice the connection between the Bill and the statutory instrument that the Minister himself tabled a few days ago.
I look forward to the Minister's answer.

Mr. Freeman: Let me deal with the three major points raised by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).
First, if there is an exemption and a licence is not required, the arguments that I have deployed in relation to enforcing an agreement through the licence clearly cannot apply: the hon. Gentleman is right in that regard. Undertakings that are exempt—including London Underground and the docklands light railway, which is related to London Regional Transport for the purposes of legislation—will exercise their right, and enter into an agreement with the British Transport police. The hon. Gentleman is correct, however, in saying that because they are exempt from the railway licensing system it is an option for them to extend the jurisdiction of the British Transport police, rather than its being imposed on them.
I can confirm that the docklands light railway and London Underground have a formal relationship with the British Transport police; in other words, they have extended the jurisdiction of the police voluntarily to themselves—and the system has worked very well.
I have mentioned the representation on the police committee. I indicated a cross-reference and the hon. Gentleman was right to ask questions about police jurisdiction in relation to exemptees.
The hon. Gentleman cited the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 and its definition of the tunnel system, which is exempt. That definition relates to the tunnels, terminal areas at Cheriton and Frethun, an inland clearance depot which is not proceeding as originally envisaged, necessary road and rail links of each country, and the fixed and movable equipment needed for tunnel operations.
Although British Transport police jurisdiction cannot be imposed on the tunnel system through the licensing system, BTP's jurisdiction is clear in respect of passenger and freight rail services to and from the tunnel. It exists because licences are required to run those train services, so a requirement will be imposed on the licensee to enter an agreement—which must be approved by the Secretary of State—to cover the powers of the police. Therefore, British Transport police will be at Waterloo station and on the trains, and will be responsible for the law and order function that I described earlier in respect of freight services.
In the tunnel itself and at its portals, Eurotunnel will be responsible for security arrangements. If there are problems, it will call in Kent constabulary. There is an agreement between Kent constabulary and Eurotunnel. On the other side of the channel, different arrangements will apply because there the state is responsible for security and policing arrangements.

Mr. Harvey: Will European Passenger Services be an exemptee?

Mr. Freeman: It will not be exempt. European Passenger Services will run all the trains to and from the tunnel. It will be licensed, so BTP will police those boarding and using its trains.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North drew my attention to the long list of light maintenance depots, which are exempt from the licensing system. He is right to say that jurisdiction can extend automatically to investigations and to the pursuit to those depots of anyone committing an offence. Of that, there is no question. I should not have thought that policing the depots themselves would be high on the list of policing responsibilities, but I accept that there may be a legitimate interest on the part of depot

owners to enter an agreement with British Transport police. However, that will not be compulsory but voluntarily negotiated.

Mr. Dobson: Is the Minister saying that British Transport police will have no jurisdiction over exempt premises and will have a right to enter such premises only in pursuit of someone who thieved something from the railway?

Mr. Freeman: Yes, that is a fair and accurate description. After discussions with British Transport police and the chief constable, I am not aware of any particular problems arising in relation to constraints on jurisdiction. Clearly there is a right of pursuit, but because such depots are exempt from the licensing regime it would not be possible to impose a BTP agreement on their owners, although some may wish to enter such an agreement to protect their property.

Mr. Trotter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour party issued a press release tonight? I subsequently spoke to the chairman of the British Transport Police Federation, who described that press release as
a load of garbage, so wrong it is unbelievable. I can only conclude that it was designed to stir up trouble unnecessarily.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that that has been the tone of many comments by Opposition Members tonight.

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. Doubtless the matter will be discussed in Torquay at the annual conference that he and I will be attending.

Mr. Wilson: That was a despicable intervention.
I have stood opposite the Minister, at the Opposition Dispatch Box, throughout the Railways Bill and in Committee, I respect his regard for detail and his attempts to explain the proposed legislation—in so far as it is capable of being explained—and I know that he does not run away from the issues. I am not suggesting that it was anything deliberate, as the area had not been explored, but it is on the record that at the start of the debate today he dismissed the exemptions as being only steam trains, and the odd bit here and there.
In his response to me on the stand part debate, the Minister went through every one of the substantive exemptions that I asked about and confirmed that, in each case, there would be at the very least a possibility that those parts of the railway would be outside the jurisdiction of the British Transport police and that they might or might not opt in. So far as I am concerned, that is it—the record is straight on that and we shall not obstruct the Bill tonight—but that was not what the Minister said to start with, so there are still huge questions to be answered.
The guy who is paid money by the British Transport police to look after their interests—the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who had neither the intellect nor the energy to ask any of those questions—then stood up at the end and produced the best contribution that he could make. And it spoke volumes. When members of the British Transport police read the record of this debate, they will know who asked the questions, who scraped away the surface and who began to get some of the information that is relevant to their future work and to that of railway passengers. I will let it rest there, but—my goodness—


what a movement there has been since the start of the debate in the factual information that has come from the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Dobson: I do not wish to detain the House for long. As I explained on Second Reading, the Bill is before the House because the Labour party pressed the Government to put right their errors in the Railways Act that would have left the British Transport police bereft of significant powers to combat crime, look after the interests of passengers and goods on the railways, and continue our efforts to fight terrorism. The Bill was urged on the Government by myself, and, in the knowledge of my urging, also by the chairman of British Rail and the chief constable of the British Transport police. They believed that it was right to introduce such a Bill. I believe that it was right to do so and hope that the inadequate measure that is before us tonight will be something of an improvement on the situation that would have prevailed had we not got the Bill.
Tonight's brief debate has demonstrated what we suspected as soon as we saw the Bill—that it is an inadequate and confused measure. I do not know what members of the British Transport Police Federation might think, nor do I know what the chief constable of the British Transport police might think, but it appears to all Opposition Members that aspects of the Bill suggest that the comprehensive policing of the whole of the railway network exclusively by British Transport police is under threat and is further threatened.
We suspect that it is the Government's intention to exempt more and more of the railway system from the coverage of BTP generally and to cause them to restrict their activities to what is called core policing so that organisations such as Group 4 can move in and take over some of BTP's current functions.
As I said on Second Reading, when the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) was not present, the measures taken by BTP to counter terrorism are extremely impressive. They managed to assess 1,136 bomb threats last year and to close stations on only 33 occasions, when nine bombs were found. Of the 1,103 occasions when they decided not to advise the closure of stations, none of them involved a bomb and no one was injured or killed. That was the result of having a comprehensive policing system for Britain's entire railway system. That left the senior officers who have to make such judgments confident about the information that they were receiving. They were confident about their ability to analyse the situation and confident to take their lives and others' lives in their hands in making their decisions.
If the Bill undermines in any way the comprehensive nature of BTP's coverage, the Minister will be responsible for putting at risk people's safety and for increasing the vulnerability of the transport system to terrorism. He had

better remember that. If he has any doubts about the Bill in view of what has been said and the questions asked by Opposition Members, which have been left unanswered, perhaps he should eat a little humble pie and suggest some changes to be made in another place.
We are dubious about the Bill. We asked for it to be introduced and it was, but we consider it unsatisfactory. Its long-term ramifications may be extremely dangerous.

Mr. Freeman: I have a clear conscience about the Bill. It deals with a specific problem and it is clear and concise. It does not undermine the powers of the British Transport police. It ensures that their jurisdiction and powers are unimpaired. I reject the criticism that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has levelled that the Bill may be defective in some way and that we should think again. It is, of course, a Government Bill. We are not dealing with an Opposition measure. It is the result of the best legal advice and it has been supported by the Labour party and endorsed by the police committee, the chief constable and the chairman of the British Railways Board.
We are correcting a specific problem. The Bill is not a charter for Group 4 or any other private sector security firm. It is designed to ensure that BTP's powers remain unimpaired. The force will in future be able to provide the same jurisdiction and cover that it has applied hitherto. The Government have discharged their responsibilities to BTP promptly and adequately and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief but this is an important matter. I am concerned that the Bill affects the prerogative of Her Majesty in as much as it relates to constables who are sworn, I believe, to carry out their powers under the royal prerogative. If that is so, the Queen's—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That point of order cannot now arise; we have just completed the Bill.

PETITION

Value Added Tax on Fuel

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I rise to present a petition to the House about a matter which has enraged many British citizens: the imposition of VAT on fuel. It has enraged British citizens because the Government specifically promised in the last election campaign that they would not widen the scope of VAT. The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble petition of the people of York
Sheweth

That the Government intends to impose VAT on domestic fuel bills, which will greatly add to the hardship suffered by those on low incomes or with special heating needs.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove from the Finance Bill currently being considered by the House the proposals to add VAT to domestic fuel bills.


And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
The petition is signed by Mr. A. Kelly of Tennyson Avenue, York, and by many others of my constituents.

To lie upon the Table.

Outdoor Education (Safety)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. David Jamieson: I am very grateful to have been awarded the chance to debate safety in outdoor education. i come to the Chamber with mixed emotions of pleasure and sadness—pleasure that I am able to air views about outdoor education on behalf of my constituents and sadness because of the circumstances in which I have had to ask for the debate.
At 11 am on 22 March last year, eight teenagers from Southway school in my constituency went on a canoeing trip to Lyme bay in Dorset and by 11 o'clock that night it had been confirmed that four of those teenagers had died in that venture. During the past year the bereaved parents have borne their great pain with considerable dignity. They have campaigned for changes in the law with passion and perseverance because it is their wish that no parent should have to go through the agony that they have been through in the past year.
I speak, both as a former teacher and as a parent, as a supporter of outdoor education. Young people—particularly those who suffer the monotony of urban life—need the challenge of the outdoors. It gives direction and purpose to their lives and provides a discipline that is lacking in the lives of many youngsters today. The national curriculum recommends outdoor pursuits to schools and the debate is not about taking away all risk from outdoor pursuits, but about removing all unnecessary risk from those pursuits.
What changes have taken place in the past few years? Because of the onset of local management of schools, many local education authority outdoor centres are winding down or have closed. The debate is not about the merits of LMS, but that is still a fact. Many of those centres are now being replaced by commercial private centres that are run for profit. The debate is not about whether that should happen. Some of those commercial centres are good, some are excellent, some are mediocre and a few are cowboy outfits that are putting children's lives at risk. It is my wish that the poorest centres should be brought up to the standard of the best centres, or should close.
My concerns about the matter are not new. Which? has been campaigning for changes in the law for 19 years—since 1975. In 1991, it carried out a survey of centres in Great Britain. If the Minister has not already seen it, I commend to him Holiday Which? of September 1991 which showed that some of the centres that it inspected were seriously lacking in basic safety measures. It also found, as I have said, that some of the centres were excellent. However, two of the 10 centres inspected were seriously deficient in safety measures.
At that time, calls—the parents to whom I have referred and I have been saying this for the past year—were made for compulsory registration of activity centres, for a comprehensive code of practice for those centres, for appropriate qualifications for instructors employed by activity centres and for a formal system of regular and comprehensive inspection by an independent body. What checks are made?

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Jamieson: What checks are being made on those centres? In a recent. well-reported case, the centre in Lyme bay and several other centres were checked by an inspector who was sent round by the British Activity Holiday Association. Presumably, he gave a clean bill of health to those centres. However, it was later found that he ran a centre that was seriously deficient. He was quoted in no less a journal than the Western Morning News as saying that he had no qualifications. He said that he just used common sense to carry out the task.
Would we allow an aeroplane mechanic working on a aeroplane on which we were about to fly or a surgeon who was about to carry out open-heart surgery to use just common sense? What is wrong with the present system is that any of us in the Chamber, whether we were skilled or experienced, could open an outdoor pursuits centre tomorrow and take youngsters on potentially hazardous outings.
Most local education authorities have good guidance. Over the past year, I have discovered that a few of them have weak guidance. Some have guidance that is virtually non-existent. I am concerned that grant-maintained schools do not have guidance on which to fall back unless they take note of the LEA guidance in their areas.
Some of those schools are now using what is called the named instructor scheme whereby a centre fills in a check list sent in by the school. That check list is checked afterwards. However, the difficulty is that too few schools have people who are competent to say whether that check list has been filled in correctly. Similarly, too few LEAs have outdoor pursuits advisers who can tell them whether that check list has been filled in correctly. The system is fundamentally flawed because those check lists rely on the centres giving truthful and accurate answers about the operation of the centres.
It is estimated that 25 per cent. of children who go to those centres every year do not go through their schools or LEAs. They go straight to the centre from home. Their parents usually find a centre in one of the Sunday supplements. There is no checking in between by any other body to discover whether the centre is working to high standards.
We expect the highest standards of safety in a civilised society in any body that is operating publicly. We do not get on a bus and ask whether the bus driver has a driving licence. We expect that to be the case. However, in outdoor education activities, there is no statutory requirement for any person to have qualifications to carry out those activities.
I want now to consider briefly the Government's response to the tragedy to which I have referred. On 11 November, the Secretary of State for Education released his four-point plan. The first item in the plan is that the Health and Safety Executive should inspect the centres. It came out earlier this year that the Health and Safety Executive will inspect only 100–50 a year for two years—out of an estimated 3,000 centres. On that basis, it will take 60 years to inspect all the centres. If we applied that to motor vehicles, would we say that it is satisfactory to give an MOT to only one out of 30 vehicles? The Minister's plan is seriously deficient in that respect.
There is another point. In written questions, I have asked both the Department for Education and the Department of Employment where those 3,000 centres are in Britain. Neither of those Departments could give me an answer. They simply said that the information was not

collected in the form in which I requested it. All that I asked for was the names of the centres and the counties in which they are. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten the House and tell us in what form the statistics are kept, if they are kept at all. Does he know where all the centres are, so that he is in a position to have them inspected by the Health and Safety Executive?
Another point in the Minister's plan is that the reports will be published. I agree with that, but where will the reports be published? How will they be made available to parents who are thumbing through the colour supplements on Sunday to find a centre? How will parents and schools see the reports? I remind the Minister that the Department of Employment said that the first reports will not be available until April 1995 and the second batch will be available in April 1996. Three years after the tragedy, we will have reports on one out of every 30 centres.
I refer to a letter that I received from the Minister on another matter—I asked him about Ofsted reports of private schools. In a letter dated 17 February, he said:
The onus is on the school to distribute the report to interested parties or to advise them where reports can be obtained.
Will he use the same criteria for those centres or will the reports be openly and freely available to all?
The four-point plan set out further guidance for schools. I am glad that many schools are receiving good guidance. The guidance available in Devon is excellent—it was updated following the terrible tragedy. However, all of the guidance documents still rely on honest and truthful answers from the outdoor centres. That is a fundamental flaw in the present system.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Jamieson: Time is limited; I am sorry but I am unable to give way tonight.
The fourth point in the plan laid out by the Minister is that he will change the articles for governing bodies to reinforce the legal responsibility of governors. Unless other measures are put in place, I am afraid that that will make governors who support outdoor education reluctant to send children on such activities because they would be held legally liable for the shortcomings of centres over which they have no control whatever.
The Secretary of State has set up a steering group—it is meeting at present—to draw up new guidelines. The membership of that group is excellent. I am pleased that it has a number of distinguished members. The work of that group will be of limited value—indeed, it will have negligible value—unless there are some statutory teeth to what it is doing. The draft document refers users to a code of practice set out by tourist boards. That code of practice has been drawn up largely by people who own such centres or who have a vested interest in them. Any code of practice should be drawn up independently by people who do not have a direct financial interest in a centre.
Most of all, what is wrong is that there is no binding requirement on any centre to employ instructors who are properly qualified to carry out the work. We know that some of the people who work in centres start work a matter of days before the activity is undertaken, sometimes with no training at all. They are paid £30 or £40 a week, and are expected to take responsibility for the lives of young children.
What is needed? Clearly, the new guidelines for local education authorities—particularly those which have


insufficiently good guidelines at the moment—are right. I applaud what the Minister is doing in that respect. We want all of the guidelines to come up to the best standards. However, they must be backed by teeth. There must be a statutory obligation on the centres.
The Minister needs to address two points. The inspections that take place are carried out by the Health and Safety Executive, but just inspecting a few centres is insufficient. The hon. Gentleman must make sure that far more centres are inspected. They could be inspected by an agency, and the centres themselves could pay. That is a little bit like the MOT test example that I gave. The centres could have some sort of kite mark which would show that they had been tested and had met high standards as a minimum requirement. I know that many good centres would welcome and would pay for such a scheme. That does not necessarily have a financial implication, and perhaps there could be some pump-priming from the Minister. I ask him to address seriously the question of wider inspection.
The other main point is that there should be a clear legal framework for establishing that instructors who are undertaking potentially hazardous activities, such as abseiling, yachting or canoeing on the sea, should have qualifications to carry out those activities. That does not exist at the moment. If we allow just anybody to take children abseiling or canoeing, I am afraid that their lives will be at risk. I have also found out that there are literally millions of children going through the centres each year. I ask the Minister to address the two points of inspection and the statutory qualifications that people should have.
It is my wish, and the wish of the parents who lost their children in the appalling tragedy last year, that there should be changes in the law to make sure that all outdoor education establishments are working to the highest standards. I know that my thoughts, and those of many hon. Members, will be with the parents who lost Simon, Claire, Dean and Rachel. Let us hope that their sad and tragic loss spurs to us change the law.

Mr. Bill Olner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) for allowing me a few minutes to speak in the debate. I am also grateful to the Minister because he indicated that, hopefully, he would be able to respond in some way.
My concern is the safety aspects of private schools and, in particular, private kindergartens and primary schools. Tragically, the young child of a Mr. and Mrs. Sargeant in my constituency died in a swimming accident at such a private school. The child died basically because of a difficulty with a floatation device.
I am not seeking to apportion blame or neglect in the matter. What concerns me, and what also concerns Mr. and Mrs. Sargeant, is the yawning gap in enforcing the best standards within those establishments. This follows closely on what my hon. Friend was saying.
There are elements of danger in everything, but people—particularly parents—are reassured if they know that those elements of danger, to the best of everybody's intentions, are being closely monitored. There does not appear to be anyone with jurisdiction for safety in private schools, with the exception of the Health and Safety Executive and the police. Admirable as those two bodies

might be, I do not believe that they have the breadth, scope and expertise of local education authorities. LEAs examine such matters continually and on a larger scale. In the letter that the Minister kindly sent me dated 7 March he unfortunately gives no undertaking that the Government are prepared to consider that suggestion.
I hope that in response to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport and my speech the Minister will take it on himself to consider the matter more closely. He said in his letter that once an independent school has satisfied the Secretary of State that the necessary standards have been achieved, everything is OK, everything is signed. I remind the Minister that, tragically, standards can be applied in the first instance but may well not continue to be applied.
Unfortunately, there is a yawning gap in the legislation. I sincerely hope that the Minister will examine the case again and will consider the difficulties that have arisen. I hope that there will be some liaison with the LEAs. I hope that their expertise, which I am sure will be welcomed by most of the independent and private schools, can be put to good use.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call anyone, I must be clear that the Member has the permission of both the Minister and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) to speak.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I wish to intervene for only one minute.
I also lost a constituent as a result of the canoeing accident. I was extremely disappointed that my next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), did not have the courtesy to allow me to intervene in his speech in this important debate, which I am glad that he managed to obtain. It is not helpful if next-door neighbours who have suffered the same tragedy do not stand together to announce such—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must make it clear that an Adjournment debate is essentially on a subject raised by one Member and answered by a Minister. The custom is for another Member who wishes to take part in the debate to sound out both the Member and the Minister in advance.

Mr. Steen: I merely wished to intervene, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not intend to make a speech, but because the hon. Member for Devonport refused even to allow me to ask a question, I am having to make a short speech.
I lost a constituent in the tragic accident. I do not believe that if statutory rules and regulations had been laid down the accident would have happened. It was one of those tragedies that occur from time to time which one feels are an appalling waste of life. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not overreact to the tragedy, believing that creating more rules and regulations will prevent such tragedies from happening.
The Health and Safety Executive has an amazing number of things to do. To give it more tasks is unlikely to result in such tragedies being prevented. I hope that the


Minister will take that point to heart. We do not necessarily stop such unfortunate occurrences by passing rules and regulations.

Mr. Andrew Miller: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member have the permission of the Minister?

Mr. Miller: I said to the Minister that I would take only two minutes, and I shall stick to that.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on handling the matter in the way that he has. It is a particularly important issue. I must say in response to the point raised by the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) that such tragedies can be avoided. I rise to speak as someone with many years' experience of canoeing. I built some of the first glass fibre boats in this country in the early 1960s.
When I discussed the day after the tragedy the matters raised by my hon. Friend, I was horrified to learn about the lack of supervision. Basic needs were ignored. For example, the youngsters had been given no training in deep-sea rescue before they were taken across Lyme bay, which is a treacherous piece of water. There were no spray decks on the vessels. The clothing worn, although good, was inadequate. The situation in which those youngsters found themselves was bound to cause a tragedy. It is nonsense to argue that that tragedy could not have been avoided. Way back in the early 1960s, there were canoeing expeditions in British waters, emulating experiences gained by eskimos in Arctic waters, that were supervised far more safely than was this specific incident.
The right place to comment in detail and to attribute blame is obviously another place, but I hope that the Minister will take on board the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport throughout the past year, and the very clear guidance given by the British Canoe Union and other organisations which have clearly indicated that the tragedy should have been, and could have been, avoided.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on bringing this important matter before the House in the way that he has. As he pointed out, we are in effect at the anniversary of the Lyme bay tragedy to which he referred, in which four of our young people so sadly died. I wish to express yet again the sympathy that I and my colleagues feel and want to express to the family and friends of those young people, and our determination to learn the lessons and to take effective action in regard to them. I also want fully to acknowledge the tenacity with which the hon. Gentleman has rightly pursued the issue, which will have affected his constituents and those of other hon. Members present, and what he has done to promote that inside the House and outside and indeed in my own Department. He has also met the Secretary of State with the parents of the young people.
I shall briefly set out our response and the reasoning behind it, in the hope that I will be able to persuade hon.
Members of our thinking, and of the effectiveness that we believe that it will have. I recognise that the hon. Member for Devonport, the Devon county council, the young people in the Southway school, the bereaved parents and many other people have said that they believe—the hon. Gentleman has repeated it tonight—that the right way forward is to introduce new statutory and regulatory provision, through which there would be a compulsory scheme of accreditation and inspection of outdoor activity centres, whether in the private or public sector. I want to explain why, although we thought very carefully about that, in the end we did not share that view.
First, I do not think that it is necessarily, even now, sufficiently realised what comprehensive and relevant provision there already is in common law and statute law and in regulations. There are the long established and important common law requirements for those acting in loco parentis to exercise a duty of care. There are existing general statutes imposing duties with respect to health and safety and especially, as has been referred to more than once, the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Within that general framework, there are specific regulations such as the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 and others which apply to activity centres as well as to other premises.
In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Diner), I believe that those all apply equally to the types of schools that he mentioned, but I would like to examine the point that he made to discover whether that is the case and what other assurances I am able to give him in the matter that he raised during the debate. I will do that and let him know when I have done so.
The regulations require employers and the self-employed to undertake an assessment of risks to the health and safety of their employees and to others, such as members of the public, who may be affected by their work, and introduce measures necessary to comply with the requirements of the law. I cannot comment on matters before the courts, but it is well known that prosecutions are being pursued relating to the events at Lyme bay under existing law by the Crown Prosecution Service.
We therefore believe that further specific provisions for activity centres in that regard would not necessarily add rapidly or significantly to safety. They would undoubtedly take time to frame and implement—more time than the measures which we are currently implementing.
Given the range of existing provisions, there might be serious dangers that additional requirements—even of the kind outlined by the hon. Gentleman—would add burdens on both suppliers and customers of services, including the schools themselves, increasing costs and possibly, therefore, acting as a deterrent to the provision of activities, which the hon. Gentleman conceded at the outset form such a valuable educational contribution to the curriculum of the schools.
Against that background, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the Government's alternative approach in the statement that he made last November. He announced the Government's programme of action, which consisted of a special programme of inspections of outdoor centres by the Health and Safety Executive and its expert inspectorate, and the provision of information from that programme. On the hon. Gentleman's point about their inspecting "only 100 centres", it is normal practice for the Health and Safety Executive, as it is with their factory and all other kinds of inspections, to look at the profile of the


matter and draw up priorities. Those can be altered and made flexible as experience is gained and priorities change. I shall discuss that a little more later if time permits, but it is an important point to bear in mind. Although the number may appear small, the effectiveness may be much greater, as it is with factory inspections. We shall then have new advice and guidance to our partners in the education service, who are the customers for the services provided by the centres.
In his announcement, the Secretary of State emphasised the Government's support for the initiative being undertaken by the English tourist board, in association with others, to devise a code of practice for activity centres and to work towards a new system of accreditation with endorsement by respected national bodies. The Government not only support that process but are and will remain closely involved with it.
We are undertaking a comprehensive series of actions, looking carefully at the quality of health and safety provision in a large and representative sample of centres with information emerging from that process, and the possibility of enforcement measures in response to any deficiencies identified; advice to the schools and others on the education side, including a clarification of relevant responsibilities; and encouragement of and involvement with a national but non-statutory scheme of accreditation, which will form an increasingly important reference point for the users of services.
The action being undertaken is comprehensive, dealing with the various aspects of the question by partnership, which is the right approach, with others involved, building on existing resources in the system and on established lines of responsibility. We believe that approach to be both quicker and of more practical benefit than an attempt to put in place new, more comprehensive and statutorily-based forms of regulation.
Work on all aspects of the action programme is being taken forward urgently. For example, my Department has already been working on new guidance to schools and others in the education service, with valuable collaboration by other agencies both inside and outside Government, with the aim of preparing a new document which we plan to make available next month. That will set out in appropriate detail, but in concise and practical form,

information which schools and local authorities will wish to consider, drawn from the lessons of the Lyme bay tragedy. We shall give advice on procedures which they will wish to follow to ensure, as far as is practicable, the safety of pupils attending outdoor centres.
The Health and Safety Executive, for its part, is well advanced with arrangements for the special programme of inspections that will begin on 1 April. It will involve inspectors from six areas of the country, including Wales and Scotland, and from local authorities. More than 100 visits will be made by October this year. Centres are being chosen on the basis of local information, taking account of the proportion of the client group represented by children, the risks associated with the activities offered, the number and range of activities and the knowledge of any previous incidents.
The inspections will go into the quality and numbers of instructing staff, affiliation to appropriate national bodies, arrangements for monitoring health and safety, the suitability and maintenance of equipment, accident reporting and emergency procedures. Special training for the inspectors involved has already been provided and will continue. A published report of the findings of the visits will be made available next spring. If any areas of significant concern emerge before that, that information will be made available.
I hope that I have said enough in the time available to show that we have given this matter careful and close thought. We looked at the alternatives outlined by the hon. Gentleman but, having taken account of the balance of the speed and efficacy with which we could introduce measures, the varying circumstances of the centres, the expertise available through the Health and Safety Executive, and our desire to make those centres as readily available to schools as they have been in the past, the Secretary of State and I believe that the solution which we are offering is rapidly available and practical. We shall monitor it and keep it closely under review.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in looking forward to that new regime making a significant and rapid impact and difference to ensure that, as far as we can, the tragedy that occurred a year ago will never be repeated.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.